dismissed EB-1B Case: Biotechnology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 03 094 50435 
PETT.ION: 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. $ 1153(b)(l)(B) 
1 
-i 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: f- 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a biotechnology firm. 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. 4 1153(b)(l)(B). The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a principal investigator. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the significance of the beneficiary's research, or that 
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for classification as 
an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's request for additional evidence did not identify any deficiencies in 
the evidence submitted initially and asserts that new evidence is now being submitted to overcome the bases of 
denial. 
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): 
@) 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, 
for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(m> 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 hll-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
8 C.F.R. 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 andlor 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 
andfor research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) &om former or current 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 4,2003 to classify the beneficiarjr as an outstanding researcher in the field of 
biotechnology. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of research 
experience in the field of biotechnology as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally within the field as outstanding. 
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 six criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfl 
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. 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$eld 
The petitioner relies on the beneficiary's receipt of a postdoctoral fellowship award from the American Heart 
Association's (AHA) New England Affiliate Research Committee. The award letter reflects that the fellowship 
funded the beneficiary's work on molecular mechanisms of transcriptional regulation of a cGMP signal 
transduction system. In addition, while a Ph.D. student at the University of Cambridge, the beneficiary received 
a scholarshp from the Cambridge Overseas Trust and an Overseas Research Student (ORS) award. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the criteria used to select -. the ,,- recipients of the 
above scholarships and fellowships. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter fio Jof the 
Students in Residence program at the Cambridge Overseas Trust. She asserts that in 1992, the year the 
beneficiary received his scholarship, the trust received 500 scholarship applications from 32 countries, 160 of 
which were approved. In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter &om-~xecutive Assistant for 
the ORS Award Scheme at Universities UK, who asserts that in 1992 ORS offered awards to 1,132 of the 4,250 
applicants. The petitioner also submitted a letter from the AHA inhcating that the percentile cut off for 
postdoctoral fellowships was 36.05 percent and that the beneficiary's percentile rank was 24.42 percent. The 
petitioner also submitted the summary of award characteristics, indicating that the objective of the fellowship is 
"to heIp a trainee initiate a career" and that candidates may have no more than three years postdoctoral 
experience and may not hold faculty rank. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of a 1996 $500 travel grant to present his work from the American 
Society of Hypertension, awarded to approximately 25 percent of those who applied. 
Scholarships are generally based on past academic achievement, not for accomplishments in a field of endeavor. 
mle 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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. It remains, 
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 hs fellow s6dents. 
Similarly, it is clear from the materials from the AHA that the beneficiary received a research grant limited to 
newly graduated postdoctoral trainees in the field. First, research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every 
successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from 
somewhere. Obviously the past achevements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The 
hding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fimd future research, and not to honor or recognize past 
achievement. Moreover, a grant limited to newly graduated postdoctoral trainees in the field is not indicative of 
international recognition in the field. The beneficiary did not compete with the most experienced and 
recognized members of the field. 
In light of the above, we find that the beneficiary's scholarship and fellowship cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic jield which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner submitted a letter confirming the beneficiary's membership in the Basic Cardiovascular Science 
Council of the American Heart Association. The petitioner asserted that this council "requires outstanding 
research ability abilities of its members." 
The director failed to address this criterion. On appeal, counsel reiterates the claim that the council "requires 
outstanding research ability of its members." Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Treasure Craft 
of Califonia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972). Moreover, the assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). The record lacks any evidence that the council requires outstanding achievements, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)@), or even outstanding research ability, as claimed by the petitioner and 
council. Thus, 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 jield. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
The petitioner submits evidence that three of the beneficiary's articles have been cited 11, 10, and nine times. 
We note that the citations by independent researchers total nine, nine, and eight respectively. The director 
appears to have dismissed these citations based on the fact that researchers are obligated to cite their sources. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that citations are the most persuasive evidence of the importance and impact of 
a researcher's work. 
We concur with the petitioner that citations are evidence of the impact and influence of the article cited. 
Nevertheless, the articles citing the beneficiary's work are still primarily about the author's research, not the 
Page 5 
beneficiary and his research. Thus, the citations cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary's 
work and cannot serve to meet this criterion. The citations will be considered below, however, as evidence 
relating to whether the beneficiary meets the scholarly articles criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3)(F). 
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 academicfield 
The ~etitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets thts criterion through his su~ervision of another ~ostdoctoral w 
research fellow, at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The director failed to discuss ths 
criterion. & appeal, counsel reiterates the claim that supervision of another postdoctoral fellow meets this 
criterion. 
None of the petitioner's references at Bri am and Women's Hospital attest to this supervision. While the 
record contains an abstract listing Dr. bas the first author and the beneficiary as a coauthor, this 
evidence does not imply that the beneficiary supervised -~e~ardless, this office consistently holds 
that duties inherent to one's position are not indicative of or uniquely consistent with international recognition. 
Specifically, we cannot conclude that every instructor who grades his students or that every laboratory 
supervisor who oversees another researcher has international recognition. Thus, we find that the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientijic or scholarly research contributions to the academicJield 
Initiallv. the ~etitioner submitted reference letters from the beneficiarv's collaborators and mentors. At the time +, A 
of filing, the beneficiary was working as a principal investigator for the petitioning company. Dr- 
the Associate Director for the petitioner, indicates that the beneficiary works in his core cancer group 
investigating the tumor suppressor protein PTEN. Dr...llltfsserts that the beneficiary "developed a 
novel methodology, called RNAi, which was rated amongst the top 10 scientific discoveries in 2001 by the 
prestigious journal, Science." Using RNAi, the beneficiary "managed to prevent the abnormal protein 
expression and function in cancer cells caused by PTEN mutations, and thereby he corrects the cancer causing 
effects of PTEN mutations." The petitioner did not provide a copy of the designation by Science or any 
evidence that this journal credited the beneficiary with one of the top 10 scientific discoveries in 2001. 
Prior to working for the petitioner, the beneficiary worked as a postdoctoral researcher at Brigham and 
Women's Hospital. According to the beneficiary's references, his work there, using advanced gene chip 
technology, has lead to the identification of more than 100 genes regulated by cGMP, a hormone-like molecule 
impacting the cardiovascular system, especially blood pressure. According to Dr. in whose 
laboratory the beneficiary worked at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the 
received the Nobel Prize in 1998 and Science desi ated cGMP "Molecule of the Year" due to the fact that it 
mediates several clinically important drugs. Dr. &.u-ther asserts that the beneficiary identified the cGMP 
responsive element, previously unknown, and that the genes identified by the beneficiary as regulated by cGMP 
could serve as drug targets and, thus, "have the potential for the development of new therapies for coronary 
heart disease." 
In addition, while studyln for his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge, the beneficiary, working in the 
laborato of studied ANP, a hormone that regulates cardiovascular hmctions. According to 
Drhthe beneficiary was "the first researcher to uncover the up-regulation of ANP and its receptors 
during the development of artery disease impacting on a potential therapy in this disease." Whle -s 
the Global Vice President and Head of Translational Medicine and Technology at GlaxoSmithKline, he does not 
indicate that the pharmaceutical company is currently pursuing any cardiovascular therapies based on the 
beneficiary's work. 
The director noted that all of the initial references had collaborated or mentored the beneficiary. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the beneficiary's collaborators are in the best position to evaluate his work. The petitioner 
provides several independent evaluations of the beneficiary's work. Only one of these new references attests to 
having known of the beneficiary's work prior to being contacted for a reference letter. The remaining references 
indicate that their evaluation is solely based on a review of the beneficiary's curriculum vitae. 
professor at the University of Massachusetts, Clinical 
Institute for Cancer Research in Britain, and Dr 
University of Massachusetts, assert that the beneficiary's work with the tumor suppressor Wnt5a constitutes a 
major contribution to the field. This work, however, was published after the date of filing and cannot be 
considered evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility after that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). None of these references discuss the beneficiary's work 
published prior to the date of filing. 
Dr. Director of the Center for Free Radical Biology at the University of Alabama at 
Birmingham, discusses the beneficiary's work with ANP. Drtates that "insights gained through [the 
beneficiary's] research are playing an important role in the development of novel 
ANPIcGMP research moves from the laboratory towards clinical applications." Dr. irector of 
the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the Morehouse School of Medicine 
example of the beneficiary's influence, -sserts that ANP is now used as a gene therapy for 
targeting restenosis as reported in a March 2002 issue of Circulation. The list of articles citing the beneficiary's 
work, printed in November 2002, does not include a 2002 article in Circulation. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established the beneficiary's influence on that work. Finally, -does not indicate that his own work 
has been influenced by the beneficiary. 
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. It does not follow that every researcher who 
obtains a Ph.D. or is working with a government grant has made a contribution of major significance. The 
record does not establish that the beneficiary's work represented a groundbreaking advance in his field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly booh or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field 
The petitioner submitted three articles and nine abstracts. As stated above, independent researchers have cited 
each article no more than nine times. The director noted that researchers are typically required to publish the 
results of their work. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary has been "widely published in leading professional journals." 
Drasserts that some of these journals publish only the top five percent of papers. The petitioner also 
Page 7 
submits a new article. Counsel further asserts that the beneficiary has been cited "numerous times." 
While we concur with the director that publication is inherent to the beneficiary's field, more analysis is 
warranted. In response to -assertion that the beneficiary has been published in journals that only 
publish the top five percent of papers, we do not infer the impact or significance of a paper from the publication 
in which it appears. Rather, we look at the impact of the particular article. While we concur with the 
beneficiary's references that citations are an excellent means of determining the impact of the cited article, we 
do not agree with counsel that the beneficiary has been cited "numerous times." Rather, the record reflects no 
more than nine independent citations for each article. Such moderate citation is not indicative of or uniquely 
consistent with international recognition. 
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 an international reputation 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.