dismissed EB-1B Case: Biostatistics

identifying ii-ata de!eted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Appeals Office 
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 biotechnology company. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 11 53(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
senior biostatistician. 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, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, while we withdraw the director's 
adverse finding regarding the beneficiary's publication record as it relates to the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F), we uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not 
established the beneficiary's eligibility for the classification sought. 
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 in 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 -- 
(I) 
 for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
Page 3 
(111) 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching and/or research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on February 20, 2007 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of biostatistics. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three 
years of teaching and/or research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work 
has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. The beneficiary received his Ph.D. 
in December 2005, less than three years before the petition was filed. Thus, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary's research while pursuing his degree is recognized as outstanding or 
that he had full responsibility for the classes tau ht while 
 that degree. While the petitioner 
submitted letters from 
 at Texas Tech University and - 
of the University of Maryland, Baltimie County (UMBC) confirming that the beneficiary 
worked as a teaching assistant at those institutions, neither professor indicates that the beneficiary held 
full responsibility for the classes he taught. Thus, the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's 
Ph.D. research is recognized as outstanding if that experience is to count toward the beneficiary's three 
years of experience. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the beneficiary must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here 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) 
Page 4 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following 
criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
On appeal, counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that the beneficiary's "Certificate of 
Award" recognizing the beneficiary's completion of an "apprentice program" at the Walter Reed Army 
Institute of Research (WREIR) cannot serve to meet this criterion and we concur.with the director. 
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. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a 
separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
We concur with the director that recognition for completing an apprentice program does not constitute 
a major prize or award for achievement. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the Drug Information Association 
(DIA), the American Statistical Association (ASA) and the International Biometric Society (IBS). 
The bylaws for these organizations, submitted by the petitioner, reflect the following requirements: DIA 
membership "is open to those interested in upholding and contributing to the mission, goal and vision 
of the DIA," ASA membership is open to "an individual interested in the objectives of the Association 
or an individual representing an organizational member" and IBS membership is open to "individuals 
who are interested in the scope and purpose of the Society." 
' The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
The director concluded that the record does not reflect that these organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their general membership. On appeal, counsel asserts that "due to the highly 
specialized nature of these professional organizations, membership exceeds the mere payment of dues" 
and is "highly sought after by research professionals in the academic field of statistics." The 
unsupported assertions of counsel, however, do not constitute evidence and, thus, cannot overcome the 
clearly expressed membership requirements specified in the associations' bylaws, quoted above. See 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Finally, counsel asserts that the beneficiary has "actively participated in these professional 
organizations as an author, a presenter and an invited speaker," which distinguishes him ''from general 
members who maintain a passive posture." Counsel is not persuasive. The petitioner's scholarly 
articles and presentations will be considered below as they relate to the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). At issue for this criterion, however, are the membership criteria for the associations 
of which the beneficiary is a member. In other words, the membership criteria should be so exclusive 
that membership alone, rather than the level of participation within that membership; is indicative of or 
consistent with international recognition as outstanding. An interest in the beneficiary's field, the only 
membership requirement specified for any of the above associations, is not an "outstanding 
achievement" in that field. Thus, the beneficiary's professional memberships do not meet the plain 
language regulatory requirements for this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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. 
The director concluded that the brief citations of the beneficiary's work in articles that are primarily 
about the authors' own work could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel references one 
of two book reviews of a book by the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor which cites to the beneficiary's work. 
In addition, counsel quotes several of the brief references to the beneficiary's work in articles primarily 
reporting the work of the articles' authors. 
The book reviews are reviewing the work of the book's authors, not the beneficiary. Counsel implies 
that the beneficiary authored chapter seven, a chapter characterized by one of the reviews as "another 
critical component of the book." As stated above, however, the unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The record contains no evidence that 
the beneficiary is a credited author of this chapter; rather, the beneficiary's collaboration with his Ph.D. 
The petitioner has not documented that the beneficiary is an elected fellow of the ASA; thus, we do not 
reach whether this higher level of membership with its more exclusive membership criteria might meet this 
criterion. 
Page 6 
advisor is reviewed in this chapter. Significantly, the acknowledgements at the beginning of the book 
indicate that the beneficiary's work was central to chapter five. Ultimately, it is extremely indirect to 
assert that a book review of a book that cites the beneficiary's work is itself about the beneficiary's 
work. Significantly, the book review does not even mention the beneficiary by name. Thus, the book 
review cannot be seen as garnering the beneficiary any national or international exposure, let alone 
international recognition as an outstanding researcher. Moreover, the review is one of 11 full-length 
book reviews published in Biometries. Thus, without additional evidence explaining how Biometrics 
chooses the books it reviews, it is not clear that the review is indicative of the book's international 
recognition as outstanding. Finally, we concur with the director that articles which cite the 
beneficiary's work are primarily about the authors' own work, not the work of the beneficiary. As 
such, they cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary. See generally Negro-Plumpe 
v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-WJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a 
show are not about the actor). 
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 initially submitted evidence that the beneficiary had refereed a manuscript for Biometries 
at the request of - In addition, the beneficiary reviewed a chapter of the book 
"Statistical Advances in Biomedical Sciences: State of the Art and Future Directions," also at the 
request of. Finally, 
 coauthor of a book with the beneficiary's Ph.D. 
advisor, asserts that the beneficiary reviewed the draft of the book. In response to the director's request 
for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has been requested to 
review additional manuscripts for other journals after the date of filing. This evidence cannot be 
considered as evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility as of the filing date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), 
(1 2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 197 1). 
The director concluded that peer review was routine in the field and that the record did not reflect that 
the beneficiary's level of participation in the peer-review process is noteworthy. On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the beneficiary has refereed manuscripts for top journals and notes the comments by editors 
contained in the record. 
, Professor of Biostatistics at the Harvard School of Public Health and an associate 
editor for Biometries, asserts that a "good journal needs excellent referees." He then states that referees 
for Biornetrics are "selected according to their match of expertise to the subiects of the article." Dr. 
- 
fuaher asserts that the beneficiary has contriduted to the fielb. of res onse adaptive 
randomization in clinical trials and reviewed a manuscript in this area. 
 praises the 
petitioner's care in completing the review, but does not suggest that Biometrics boasts a small, 
exclusive group of reviewers that are credited in the journal. 
, an associate editor for the Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, asserts that 
the journal selects reviewers based on their expertise in the field and an established record of 
publications on the topic. He further asserts that the beneficiary has refereed two articles for the 
journal. The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary performed these reviews prior to the date 
of filing. Regardless, while praises the beneficiary's detailed reviews, he does not suggest 
that the journal boasts a small, exclusive group of reviewers that are credited in the journal. 
In evaluating evidence submitted to meet this criterion, we must examine whether the evidence is 
indicative of or consistent with international recognition if that statutory standard is to have any 
meaning. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. March 24,2006); All Pro Cleaning 
Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 "11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2005). We cannot ignore that 
scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, 
peer review is routine in the field and is not- necessarily indicative of or consistent with international 
recognition. Moreover, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary had only received requests from Dr. 
with whom he has collaborated on a manuscript, and an informal request from- 
regarding a book coauthored with the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor. These requests are not indicative 
ofthe beneficiary's widespread recognition. without evidence that sets th; beneficiary apart from 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, 
received independent requests fiom a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects 
and demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's 
degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria 
is to demonstrate that the beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it 
stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. 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." 
As stated above, outstanding 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. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Any Ph.D. thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. To conclude that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
Furthermore, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Thus, the mere authorship of scholarly articles cannot serve as presumptive 
evidence to meet this criterion. To hold otherwise would render the regulatory requirement that a 
beneficiary meet at least two criteria meaningless. 
The petitioner relies on several reference letters. The opinions of experts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. U.S. 
Citizenship and 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 evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 1.58, 165 (Comrn'r. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner 
through his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence 
in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with international recognition should be 
able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that recognition. 
The beneficiary received his Master of Science in Mathematics from Texas Tech University in 
December 2002 and his Ph.D. from UMBC in December 2005. While working towards his Ph.D., 
the beneficiary completed an internship at the WRAIR's Navy Medical Research Command 
(NMRC). Upon receiving his Ph.D., the beneficiary began working for the petitioner. 
, the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor, explains that statistical response-adaptive 
designs for analyzing clinical research data is a "hot" research area and asserts that the beneficiary's 
dissertation "has broadly expanded the knowledge of response-adaptive randomization and should 
have an impact on clinical trial practice." 
a professor at UMBC, asserts that the beneficiary's research at that institution 
"has a profound impact on clinical trial design and practice in that it can help design more ethical 
trials by allocating more patients to the better performing treatments in the course of the trials." Dr. 
does not explain how the beneficiary could have already had a "profound impact" on 
clinical trial design simply from the potential application of his research in the future. 
Chair of the Statistics Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia, 
explains that the beneficiary's adaptive randomization model can be used to assign more patients to 
the better performing treatment in continuous outcome studies without loss of power in detecting an 
existent superior treatment, which leads to an easier recruitment of patients and ultimately the 
expedition bf the dmg development process. According to 
 was the first 
to apply a parametric approach for survival oncology 
 speculates that the 
beneficiary's work "will significantly improve the understanding of this novel clinical trial design 
and have a profound impact on clinical trial practice." The record reflects that as cited 
the beneficiary's work. Specifically, she cited an article by the beneficiary as one of three articles, 
the earliest one by herself, reporting examples of linear regression models. 
, an associate professor at the Indian Statistical Institute in Kolkata, asserts that he does 
not know the beneficiary personally, but only through the beneficiary's published work. While not 
mentioned by, he had coauthored a manuscript with the beneficiary, submitted with the 
initial petition. ~hus, is one of the beneficiary's collaborators. asserts that 
the beneficiary's work with response-adaptive randomization methodologies is a "breakthrough that 
"will greatly increase the chance for patients to obtain a better therapy and have a significant impact 
on clinical trial practice." 
professor at the University of Virginia who has coauthored a book with Dr. 
, provides similar information to that discussed above. 
Belgium, discusses the importance of response adaptive randomization design in clinical trials in 
general, noting that all major conferences dedicate sessions to this topic. explains 
that the beneficiary's 2006 article "provides an explicit formula that is used to evaluate different 
designs, including a new one proposed" by the beneficiary that expands the methodolo 
clinical trials with binary outcomes to those with continuous outcomes. -from 
discusses the beneficiary's work published after the date of filing. The petitioner, however, must 
demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Thus, we will not consider work published after that date. 
The petitioner provided similar letters from - a professor at Johns Hopkins 
University, 
 a professor at the University of Cape Town, South Africa and- 
, Chair of the Statistics Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 
, a research fellow at Johnson and Johnson, Inc., asserts that all of the beneficiary's 
publications have been cited but that the beneficiary's 2006 article in Biometrics stands out, in part 
because it was "recently included in the most advanced book in this field." This book, however, was 
authored by the beneficiary's own Ph.D. advisor and coauthor of the 2006 article. The record 
contains no evidence that this book was a widely used textbook as of the date of filing. 
The petitioner also provides a letter from 
 Deputy Director of the Division of 
Biometrics VI at the Center for Dru Evaluation and Research (CDER), U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration (USFDA). notes that in 2004, the FDA launched the Critical Path 
Initiative, through which the FDA is working with academic and industry researchers to identify 
solutions to scientific hurdles. As part of this program, the CDER has issued five policy guidelines 
for statistical contributions, including guidelines on "Adaptive Study Design." asserts that 
the beneficiary's research work "has provided new tools and approaches to adaptive designs and was 
very instrumental in the formulation of our policy guidelines on the subject." does not, 
however, explain how the beneficiary influenced these guidelines. For example, = does not 
assert that the beneficiary served an official role on an advisory committee or that his work is cited 
within the guidelines. The petitioner did not submit the guidelines themselves; thus, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the beneficiary is officially credited, acknowledged or cited within those 
guidelines. Without additional information, we cannot determine the significance of the 
beneficiary's contributions to the CDER guidelines. 
further asserts that the beneficiary's previous research on graph factorization "is widely 
used in statistics to obtain efficient experimental designs with nice properties." 
 While we 
acknowledge that this work has been moderately cited in China, the record contains no explanation 
from the authors of the citing articles or others relying on this work explaining how it is being 
applied. As most of the citations are in Chinese, we cannot determine the context of the citations. 
The English citation by, cites the beneficiary's articles on graph factors as 
three of twelve articles referenced for "further information on the connections between network 
flows and graph factors, as well as fractional (g, f)- factors.'' does not single out the 
beneficiary's work. 
, former Chief of the Biostatistics Department at WRAImMRC, discusses the 
beneficiary's work reviewing animal and clinical trial protocols at that institution. -tates: 
[The beneficiary] was instrumental in executing statistical design studies, 
randomization procedures, and appropriate methods for analysis. [The beneficiary] 
conducted statistical analyses, designed graphical displays and provided expert 
opinion in the interpretation of results on a number of key research projects. [The 
beneficiary] used his outstanding skills as a statistician to program and m 
simulations in order to obtain accurate sample size estimates for evaluating vaccine 
efficacy in clinical trials. He provided a practical application of advanced 
biostatistical methods to an animal study designed to evaluate the efficacy of 
pharmacological interventions to protect divers from decompression sickness. 
While 
 asserts that the beneficiary's role on this project was "acknowledged," he does not 
suggest that the beneficiary's role was deemed sufficient for authorship credit. Finally, - 
asserts that the beneficiary "developed a sequential design method and derivation for the expansion 
and analysis of a pilot study conducted to evaluate evidence of a treatment effect." 
asserts that the beneficiary's research at WRAlR "showed that the optimal design for a 
mixture is an addition of two separate designs," which was "very helpful when designing an 
experiment for testing different mosquito repellants in Kenya sponsored by WRAIR." 
At the petitioning biotechnology company, the beneficiary works under the direct supervision of Dr. 
, ~irector of the petitioner's Biostatistics Department. 
 provides an example of 
"one instance among many cases where [the beneficiary] has developed novel statistical 
methodology to solve challenging drug R&D problems." Specifically, whereas previous methods for 
evaluating the potency of a drug, or bioassay, were insufficient especially where the potency behaves 
in a non-linear fashion, the beneficiary "suggested a theoretical remedy," which he presented at a 
conference in August 2006, approximately six months before the petition was filed. While - 
asserts that the presentation "caught the attention" of professors from UMBC and another institution, 
we reiterate that the beneficiary graduated from UMBC and, thus, had already collaborated with that 
institution. concludes that this theoretical solution "will greatly change scientists' thinking 
in the development of analytical assays for determination of drug potency." provides no 
examples of how the field's thinking has already changed. 
The record also contains evidence of the beneficiary's publication record. We acknowledge that the 
beneficiary has published his findings and that two of these articles (reporting the beneficiary's 
previous work on factors of graphs) had been moderately cited as of the date of filing. Significantly, 
the articles reporting the beneficiary's work that is the focus of the above letters were only minimally 
cited as of the date of filing. On appeal, counsel notes that it can take time for an article to be cited 
but that, as of the date of appeal, the beneficiary's 2006 article has been cited four times. The 
petitioner may not secure a priority date for the beneficiary in the hope that, during the proceedings, 
the beneficiary will accumulate additional citations. Rather, the beneficiary must be eligible as of the 
date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. At best, 
counsel is implying that the petition was filed prematurely, before the full extent of the beneficiary's 
impact on response-adaptive statistical analysis and bioassay statistical analysis could be gauged. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally as 
outstanding. For example, the record lacks evidence of clinical trials performed with the 
beneficiary's statistical methods or FDA recommendations to consider the beneficiary's methods 
when designing a clinical trial. Rather, the references predict that the beneficiary's work will have a 
future impact on biomedical research. 
Without evidence that the beneficiary's research has already impacted the field, we cannot conclude 
that he meets this criterion. 
Page 12 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the acadernicjeld 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has published a number of articles and has 
presented his work at conferences. The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
2008-2009 (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on May 28, 2009 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/oco/ocos066.htm. 
 The 
handbook expressly states that faculty members are encouraged 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. Id 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. 
We acknowledge that the record does contain evidence of moderate citation of at least two of the 
beneficiary's articles as of the date of filing. Thus, we find that the beneficiary does meet this single 
criterion. We emphasize that while a widely cited scholarly article can also be considered as evidence 
relating to the previous criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), that criterion is a separate 
criterion with different considerations. A presumption that an alien who meets this criterion must also 
meet the previous criterion would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that the beneficiary 
meet at least two criteria. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has only established that the 
beneficiary meets this one criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
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 or professor. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
 The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.