dismissed EB-1B Case: Biomass Research

!dentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
Date: MAY 15 201Z Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
:1"­
;;,f 
~, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a non-profit company involved in the research and development of renewable 
energy technologies. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(B). 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a scientist in the 
field of biomass research. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an 
outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. The petitioner has not submitted any further evidence on 
appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the record fails to 
establish that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition as outstanding in the academic field. 
Specifically, when we simply "count" the evidence submitted, the petitioner has submitted 
qualifying evidence under two of the regulatory criteria as required, judging the work of others and 
scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the final merits 
determination, however, much of the evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria reflects 
routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not, as of the date of filing, set the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 1 Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991». 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record lacks the actual job offer issued by the petitioner to 
the beneficiary, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). In addition, the petitioner has not 
established that it employs the requisite three full-time researchers in addition to the beneficiary 
as required by section 203(b )(1 )(B)(iii)(III) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C). Further, the 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner has achieved documented accomplishments in the 
beneficiary's academic field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C). 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
1 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
I' 
Page 3 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described III this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in 
the academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States --
(1) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(II) for a comparable position with a university or institution 
of higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, 
if the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 
persons full-time in research activities and has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
II. Qualifying Employer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be 
in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
" 
Page 4 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a pennanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the 
alien a pennanent research position in the alien's academic field. The 
department, division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least 
three persons full-time in research positions, and that it has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
Firstly, the petitioner has not submitted its job offer to the beneficiary. Instead, at the time of 
filing this petition, the petitioner submitted a letter from a representative of 
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a government owned - contractor operated (GO CO) 
facility, operated since October 1, 2008 by the petitioner. The letter is addressed to United 
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and states that as of October 2008, the 
beneficiary has been employed by the petitioner as a regular staff member, and that the 
petitioner's regular staff positions, "are permanent positions in that they are non-contract 
positions without a specific tenn of employment." Black's Law Dictionary 1189 (9th ed. 2009) 
defines "offer" as "the act or an instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display 
of willingness to enter into a contract on specified tenns, made in a way that would lead a 
reasonable person to understand that an acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding 
contract" and defines "offeree" as "[0 ]ne to whom an offer is made." In addition, Black's Law 
Dictionary defines "offeror" as "[0 ]ne who makes an offer." Id. at 1190. 
In light of the above, the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the offeree, not a 
third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made "to the beneficiary" 
would simply be redundant. Thus, the petitioner's statement to USCIS confinning the petitioner's 
employment of the beneficiary is not an offer of employment within the ordinary meaning of that 
phrase. The record does not contain an offer of employment from the petitioner addressed to the 
beneficiary, which is required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
Secondly, the petitioner has not established that it employs the required three full-time 
researchers, in addition to the beneficiary. Instead, at the time of filing this petition, counsel 
submitted a letter from a representative of NREL stating that the petitioner, as the management 
is to employ all the individuals who work at 
representative also states, "We currently employ 1300 individuals, 50% of 
whom are research scientists and engineers." We reiterate that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) states that the petitioner must "demonstrate" that it employs at least three 
full-time researchers. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to establish this element of eligibility; 
USCIS is not required to infer the number of researchers from a percentage of the total number 
of employees, some of whom are also engineers. Since the petitioner has not submitted evidence 
that it employs three full-time researchers, the petitioner has not established that it is a qualifying 
petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
· , 
Page 5 
Thirdly, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner has achieved documented accomplishments 
in the beneficiary's academic field. As quoted above, the regulation requires that the petitioner 
must "demonstrate" its achievement of documented accomplishments. At the time of filing this 
petition, counsel submitted a letter from a representative of NREL stating that NREL "is the 
United States' premier laboratory for the research and development of renewable energy 
technologies." NREL's representative also states that the petitioner, ••••••••• 
NREL, "is accountable for accomplishing the mission and programs assigned by DOE 
[Department of Energy] and for managing and operating NREL." However, the record does not 
contain any evidence of the petitioner's documented accomplishments in the beneficiary's 
academic field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that it is a qualifying petitioner pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[e]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists 
the following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least 
two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the 
alien's work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and 
author of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to 
the academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
Page 6 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations.2 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination? While involving a different classification 
than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's 
reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center 
decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under three 
criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(1)(B) ot the Act, requires qualifying 
evidence under only two criteria. 
Page 7 
IV. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria4 
This petition, filed on May 14, 2010, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a researcher who is 
recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. The petitioner has submitted 
documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required 
evidence of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" has 
been removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized 
internationally as outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." 
(Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60897-01, 60899 (Nov. 29, 1991.) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a 
major award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards 
cannot serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for a separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Regarding the beneficiary having been the recipient of Joachim Graduate Fellowships, a letter 
submitted by the petitioner from SUNY states that a Joachim Fellow is chosen from among those 
who have completed one semester at particular graduate program at SUNY-ESF, while maintaining 
a minimum G.P.A. of 3.0. The documentation also states that preference in the award of the 
fellowship was given to students whose research was focused on or related to management or 
business principles. 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
" 
Page 8 
Regarding the beneficiary having been the recipient of the Solvay Graduate Fellowship, a letter 
submitted by the petitioner from SUNY states that a Solvay fellowship is given to "deserving 
graduate students of the PBE program at SUNY -ESF" and "the award will be given to a graduate 
student who demonstrates a high level of scholarship and research ability and is who is performing 
research in recycling technology." 
Regarding the beneficiary having been the recipient of the Renata Marton Scholarship, a letter 
submitted by the petitioner from SUNY states that a Renata Marton Scholarship is given to a 
student who demonstrates the following: excellence in the G.P.A. achieved; difficulty and level of 
courses; record of research accomplishments demonstrated by authoring published journal articles 
or presenting work at national or international conferences; quality and potential impact of research 
being undertaken; and, recognition by peers as being possessed of good character. 
Regarding the beneficiary having been the recipient of SUNY -ESF, PBE department research 
scholarship and full graduate tuition waiver (2001-2007), the petitioner has not submitted the 
selecting criteria for this scholarship. 
The above selection criteria demonstrate that these awards do not qualify as a major prizes or 
awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field. Fellowships limited to graduate students 
are not indicative of international recognition in the field. The beneficiary competed with his fellow 
graduate students, not with the most experienced and recognized members of the field. Likewise, 
scholarships are generally based on past academic achievement, not for accomplishments in a field 
of endeavor. While 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(A) references outstanding achievements in one's 
academic field, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge 
offered for study." The definition does not include typical bases for scholarships, such as grade 
point average and class standing. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. 
Rather, academic study is training for a future career in an academic field. As such, scholarships in 
recognition of academic achievement, such as grade point average, are insufficient. Scholarships 
are simply not evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high 
academic achievements in comparison with one's fellow students. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed manuscripts for the 
following publications: Bioresource Technology; Journal of Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 
Research; and, Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. In addition, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that the beneficiary reviewed an application for a research grant submitted to the 
National Research Foundation in South Mrica. 
Page 9 
This evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the 
nature of these duties may be and will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner has submitted reference letters from eight individuals, (five of whom 
are from the beneficiary's immediate circle of coauthors and collaborators). The plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary's contributions 
themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That being said, the plain language of the 
regulation does not simply require original research, but an original "research contribution." Had 
the regulation contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and 
not have included the extra word "contribution." Moreover, the plain language of the regulation 
requires that the contribution be "to the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory or 
institution. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored several journal articles in the academic field, 
two dissertations and a book. We also acknowledge that the beneficiary has presented his work at 
several international conferences, as is mentioned in the reference letters. If the regulations are to 
be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a 
separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. In addition, even if we considered the 
original nature of the beneficiary's research to qualify it under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), and we do not, whether or not the contributions are indicative of the 
beneficiary's international recognition in the field is a valid consideration under our final merits 
determination. (We will consider the published materials under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F». 
an engineering and technical manager at states that he 
worked closely with the beneficiary on the beneficiary's master's degree research project. He states 
that the beneficiary, unlike the vast majority of researchers in his field, "has modeled his data by 
developing algebraic and differential equations and then proceeded to solve said equations." He 
also states that the beneficiary helped to develop a novel NMR spectroscopic technique to 
accurately measure lignocellulosic substances. does not provide examples of 
institutions of higher education/universities using the beneficiary's models, equations or 
spectroscopic technique. He states that the beneficiary's research has provided insight into the 
autohydrolysis of xylans in wood, and accounts for the mass transfer limitations in the 
autohydrolysis process, two contributions he believes will be instrumental to develop the 
biofuels of the future. However, speculation as to a future contribution cannot establish that the 
beneficiary has already contributed to the academic field as a whole. _ does not 
explain how the beneficiary's research findings are already being applied in the field, as would be 
expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. 
Page 10 
professor in environmental engineering design at Dartmouth in New Hampshire, 
states that he became familiar with the beneficiary through his publications, although he does not 
indicate how he learned of the beneficiary's work. He states that the beneficiary's research is 
investigating more efficient and economical approaches to the pretreatment of cellulosic biomass, 
and has enabled him to develop a pretreatm~hat achieves a maximum amount of fuel 
production while remaining cost effective. _ does not explain how the beneficiary's 
research results are already being applied in the field. 
a biochemist, is an employee of NREL, where the beneficiary works as an 
employee of the petitioning company. the beneficiary's team leader, states that the 
beneficiary is leading research to develop the conversion of lignocellulosic (crop waste) biomass 
into fuel in a cost-effective manner, by redesigning the pre-treatment step so that it is a less 
expensive and easier process. He describes the two different aspects of the beneficiary's research in 
redesigning pre-treatment, as well as other aspects of the beneficiary's research. He states that the 
beneficiary's master's degree research project at SUNY-ESF, which designed a process that 
allowed paperboard mills to reduce their freshwater consumption and increase their use of recycled 
water, was used by the mill that validated the beneficiary's research results. The use of the 
beneficiary's master's degree research data by the mill involved in validating the data does not 
demonstrate the beneficiary's contribution to the field as a whole. Although •••••• 
describes the beneficiary's current research projects and duties, he does not provide examples of 
independent research institutions using the beneficiary's techniques, or explain how the 
beneficiary's work has impacted the field. 
a professor of wood chemistry at the University of Hamburg, Germany, states 
that he is "well familiar" with the beneficiary through his publications, although he does not 
indicate how he learned of the beneficiary's work. He states that the beneficiary's work 
"established a model that was excellent at estimating the xyloogomers and xylose yields of 
hydrolate during the auto hydrolysis of sugar maple wood meal ... an important contribution to a 
better utilization of wood as a non-fossil source for production of value-added chemical 
foodstocks" Although_ states that the beneficiary's research findings have had the result 
that "many in the field have been able to improve their own research" by implementing the 
beneficiary's models and measurement techniques, he does not provide specific examples of 
research institutions using the beneficiary'S models and techniques, or explain how the beneficiary's 
work has already impacted the field. 
a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Vigo (Ourense 
Campus), Spain, does not indicate how he learned of the beneficiary's work. He states that the 
beneficiary's doctoral dissertation, "focused on a pre-treatment of hardwoods to create energy 
through convertible glucose ... has made alternative bio-fuels are (sic) much brighter source for 
alternative fuels." _does not explain how others in the field are applying the beneficiary's 
research results. He also states that the beneficiary's research project, which developed a system for 
water conservation and waste reduction in paper mills, has been implemented in one paper mill. 
However, as stated above, the use of the beneficiary's master's degree research data by the mill 
Page 11 
involved in validating the data does not demonstrate the beneficiary's contribution to the field as 
a whole. 
during the period 
when the beneficiary obtained his doctoral degree, states that the beneficiary "developed a 
mathematical formulation that can be used to predict optimum particle size for maximum glucose 
extraction. This represents a foundational finding for the further development of alternative fuel 
sources." He also states that the beneficiary "discovered a technique for measuring quantifiable 
sugar presence in liquids." He states that the beneficiary's research has the potential ~ 
many industries, and is invaluable for the creation of green, renewable energy sources. ___ 
does not provide examples of how the beneficiary's findings are already being applied in the field, 
as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. 
an associate professor of paper and chem~ng at Miami University, 
Ohio, states that he met the beneficiary in graduate school. ~urriculum vitae (C.V.) 
shows that he was an associate from 2001 to 2006, when the beneficiary was 
pursuing his graduate studies. He states that developed a model of a more cost-
effective method for paper mills to improve water efficiency and reduce waste production, which 
method was used in practice. However, as stated above, the use of the beneficiary's master's degree 
research data by the mill involved in validating the data does not demonstrate the beneficiary's 
contribution to the field as a whole. He also states that the beneficiary discovered a way of 
increasing xylose yields from wood chips up to 88 percent, a research finding that he states "is of 
major advancement to the field and to the future of biofuels." He does not provide specific 
examples of research institutions using the beneficiary's research findings, or explain how the 
beneficiary's work has already impacted the field. 
a professor of environmental resources and forest engineering at SUNY -ESF, 
states that he was first drawn work "when he was working on waste water 
recycling in paperboard mills." shows that he was chair of the department of 
environmental resources and forest from 2002 to 2009, when the 
beneficiary was pursuing his graduate studies. He states that the beneficiary's research, which 
developed a predictive method of measuring and remedying waste build-up, was installed at a top 
paper mill to improve water efficiency and reduce waste production. However, as stated above, the 
use of the beneficiary's master's degree research data by the mill involved in validating the data 
does not demonstrate the beneficiary'S contribution to the field as a whole. He also states that 
additional research of the beneficiary "clearly illustrates the previously unrecognizliid im ortance of 
particle size in the pre-treatment of woods for alternative energy uses," although does 
not provide examples of how this research finding is currently being applied in the flel . 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 
2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If 
Page 12 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and 
vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.5 
Considering the letters in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's 
research is original or can be considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
that meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored several journal articles in the academic field, 
two dissertations and a book. The petitioner has also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has 
presented his work at several international conferences. 
Further, the petitioner has submitted a citation record for the beneficiary, containing approximately 
eight total citations to the beneficiary's work, and copies of several articles containing citations to 
the beneficiary's work. The beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to 
whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of 
collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in 
our final merits determination. 
5 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, US CIS need not accept primarily 
conclusoryassertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General a/the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 13 
Thus, the petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets two of the criteria that must 
be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically the 
petitioner submitted evidence to meet the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). 
The next step, however, is a final merits detennination that considers whether the evidence is 
consistent with the statutory standard in this matter, international recognition as outstanding. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
It is important to note at the outset that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 
international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to 
some extent indicative of international recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and 
researchers should stand apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction 
based on international recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in 
evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. Employment-Based 
Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 
(Nov. 29, 1991». 
The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. 
See 596 F. 3d at 1122. The submitted evidence that the beneficiary_ 
In addition, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that the beneficiary reviewed an application for a research grant submitted to 
the National Research Foundation in South Africa. 
The AAO cannot ignore the fact that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many 
scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer 
reviewer enjoys international recognition. In addition, the form-letter that requested the 
beneficiary's review of an application for a research grant states that he was identified as a 
prospective reviewer "due to your expertise and knowledge in the research field exhibited in this 
application." Without other evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, such 
as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of 
referees, or received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, the AAO 
cannot conclude that the beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of or consistent with 
international recognition. 
Regarding the beneficiary's original research, as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the 
level of a contribution to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary's 
work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the 
beneficiary apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on 
Page 14 
international recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be 
unlikely to secure the beneficiary a Master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding 
researcher. To argue that all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that 
adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on January 28, 2010 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/ocolocos066.htm. The handbook expressly 
states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs 
training students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original 
research. [d. This information reveals that original published research, whether arising from 
research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that 
researcher's field. 
Further independent references, do not indicate that they learned of 
the beneficiary's work through the beneficiary's international reputation. Indeed, the record 
lacks evidence that a significant number of members of the academic field outside of the 
beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues are even aware of his work. 
The beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner has submitted several articles containing citations to the 
beneficiary's work. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary's articles have been widely 
cited or other comparable evidence that demonstrates that the beneficiary's publication record is 
consistent with international recognition. This moderate level of citation is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary's published work has been widely cited or other comparable 
evidence that demonstrates that the beneficiary's publication record is consistent with 
international recognition. 
In light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying 
evidence, participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not 
garnered widespread citations or other response in the academic field, does not set the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher, who has won the respect of his 
collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of exposure for his work. The 
record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an alien who is 
internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
, .. 
Page 15 
V. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an 
outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.