dismissed EB-1B Case: Cardiothoracic Surgery

U.S. Department sf Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
%, 
8, 
3 ," 
4 +it 
4 .( "9 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 5 2005 
LIN 02 109 54423 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been 
r office that originally decided you]- case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
e 
4- 
% 
1, 
,' I-- Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
I " 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now 
before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the AAO will 
be affirmed and the petltion will be denied. 
The petitioner is an education and research institution. It seeks to classif4r the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher pursuant to section 203{b)(l)(B) of the lrnmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1 153(b)(l)(B). According to the petition, the 1,etitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States in an unspecified permanent position. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established that it had offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing or that the beneficiary 
is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for classification as an 
outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel asserted that the director's statement that the evidence "must clearly demonstrate" the 
beneficiary's eligibility "wrongfully raises the standard of the regulations." Counsel further raised several 
specific arguments regarding the director's conclusions. 
The AAO, in a 14-page decision, addressed all of counsel's assertions, rebutting nearly all of them. 
Specifically, the AAO concluded that the director had used the word "clearly" in its common form and was 
not applying a "clear and convincing" standard of proof. The AAO further concluded that the record did not 
include a qualifying job offer dated prior to the date of filing. Finally, the AAO concluded that, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the petitioner had., at best, established that the beneficiary met one of the six 
regulatory criteria. An alien must meet at least two in order to be eligble for the classiiication sought. 
On motion, counsel continues to argue that the director applied an incorrect standard of proof. In an attempt 
to address the AAO's discussion of this issue, counsel asserts that the AAO' concluded that the "clear and 
convincing" and "preponderance of the evidence" standards are the same. 
Counsel misreads the AAO's previous decision. The AAO did not conclude that the two standards are the 
same. Rather, it concluded that the director did not apply the "clear and convincing" standard. For the 
reasons set forth in the AAO's previous decision, which we incorporate herein and will not repeat, we 
affirm that finding. We emphasize that the direlctor's decision explains that he used the phrase "clearly 
demonstrated" in the request for additional evidence to request evidence that was not ambiguous. The 
preponderance of the evidence standard, which rcquires that "the greater weight of the evidence"%upport 
the proposition to be established, requires more than ambiguous evidence. At no point did the director 
claim to be applylng the legally defined "clear and convincing" standard of proof. Thus, we continue to 
hold that the director did not use too high a standard. Moreover, the AAO made it quite clear it was 
evaluating the beneficiary's eligbility by a preponderance of the evidence standard. 
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): 
' Counsel erroneously refers to this office as the '.'Board of Immigration Appeal." 
2 Black's Law Dictionary 1201 (7'h ed. 1999). 
(3) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized irlternationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 year:s 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, 
(U) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(Ill) 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)(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; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alitn's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a pnvate employer offering the alien a 
permanent 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. 
As stated in the MO's previous decision, on Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner did not provide the job 
title or nontechnical description of the job for the proposed employment. In his initial cover letter, counsel 
asserted that exhibit 36 was a job offer letter. As discussed in the AAO's previous decision, the initial 
submission did not include a job offer. On May 21, 2002. the director requested "a copy of [the 
Page 4 
petitioner's] letter to the beneficiary which offers him a permanent research position at [the petitioning] 
university in his academic job." 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated June 6, the date of filing, 
addressed to Citizenship and Immigration Services Chief of the Division 
of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the petitioning institution is worhng as 
a "Research Associate 2Bm" under a nonimrnigrant visa and that the job offer "set forth on the immigrant 
petition for alien worker (1-140 form is still beirtg offered to him under the same terms and conditions as 
those set forth on the form." h- cor~cludes that the beneficiary "has accepted the terms of 
employment and he will become a permanent junior faculty member of our academic staff to begin with the - ~ - 
approval of his application for permanent residence." 
The director stated that the petitioner had not submitted a copy of an employment offer made by the 
petitioner to the beneficiary and concluded that the petitioner had not met the regulatory evidentiary 
requirement of submitting a letter offering the beneficiary a permanent research position in his academic 
field. The director further noted that the letter submmitted was dated over three months after the filingdate of 
the petition, and was not evidence of a permanent Job offer at the time of filing. 
On appeal, counsel stated: "Enclosed please find the letter of employment, in accordance with the statutory 
criteria, fiom the petitioner. . . offering the beneficiary . . . a permanent position as a Research Associate." 
Counsel referenced exhibit 2. This exhibit includes another copy 
and a letter dated December 20, 2002 addressed to CIS from 
professor of surgery at the petitioning institution, containing the same information as etter. 
The AAO agreed with the director that the regulations require an offer of employment from the petitioner to 
the beneficiary setting forth the title, terms and conditions of the position offered. The AAO concluded that 
another letter addressed to CIS that does not include the exact terms and conditions of the position offered 
and is dated after the date of filing could not overcome the director's clearly stated and legitimate concerns. 
The MO further noted that the record contained no evidence that the petitioning institution has authorized 
either- make legally binding offers of permanent employment. 
On motion, counsel continues to assert that the initial submission included an offer of employment. While 
counsel's orignal cover letter for the initial subnlission asserted that exhibit 36 constituted the job offer,3 
counsel now claims that exhibit 1 of the initial submission was the job offer. Exhibit 1 is an unsigned list of 
the beneficiary's alleged contributions to the field. An unsigned list of alleged contributions that fails to 
describe a job is not a job offer under any definition of the term. We affirm the finding that the orignal 
submission did not include a job offer. 
The peti timer submits its "Guidelines for Permanent Residency Sponsorship" revised more than one month 
after the date of filing. The guidelines provide that "the department must be prepared to wite a letter of 
offer stating that the employment is indefinite (i.e, permanent)." Counsel quotes this language with separate 
language from two paragraphs below providing that "the chair or individual's supervisor may sign these 
3 As stated in our previous decision, exhibit 36 is a reference letter that makes no reference to the terms 
and conditions of the job offered. 
forms." Counsel asserts that these guidelines establish that professors have hiring authority. Counsel takes 
this language out of context. The final paragraph provides, in its entirety: 
The immigration attorney handling a case may have various forms for the department to 
sign. Typically, the chair or individual's supervisor may sign these forms, but each 
department should follow its own protocol. By signing Form 1-140, "Immigration Petition 
for Alien Worker," the department is committing to an indefinite (i.e. permanent) offer of 
employment to the individual. 
This language, read in context, does not imply that all professors and supervisors have the authority to make 
a binding job offer on behalf of the university. Rather, a supervisor may, depending on department policy, 
be authorized to sign "various forms." Finally, while the guidelines state that the petitioner considers the 
signing of the Form 1-140 to constitute a comrnltrnent to indefinite employment, such guidelines cannot 
overcome the regulatory requirement for a job offer "in the form of a letter." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
On motion, the petitioner now submits an actual job offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary. The offer, 
however, is dated February 9, 2004. First, the director requested such an offer in very specific terns in his 
request for additional evidence. Thus, the submission of this evidence on motion cannot be considered. See 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). Moreover, every letter in the record that counsel 
references as a job offer is dated after the date of filing. We reemphasize that, despite counsel's 
assertions to the contrary, the initial submission did not include any document, addressed either to CIS or 
the benefic~ary, purporting to offer the beneficiary a job or confirm a verbal job offer. The issuance of a 
permanent job offer after the date of filing is irelevant to the beneficiary's eligibility as of that date. 
See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); Matter ofKutigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). The lack of a 
permanent job offer dated prior to the date of filing: is sufficient grounds for denial in and of itself. 
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 lxofessor 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 satisfy at least two. On appeal, counsel asserted that the authors of the regulations did not 
define "outstanding" and that therefore the only controlling measure for this classification is the six criteria. 
The AAO rejected that argument, noting that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 
international recognition. Thus, the AAO concluded that the petitioner could not meet his burden simply by 
submitting evidence relating to at least two criteria. Rather, any evidence submitted to meet these criteria 
must be to some extent indicative of international recobmition. The petitioner claims to have satisfied the 
following criteria. 
Documentation oj-the alien's receipt of fnujor prizes or awards for outstanding uchievemmt in the 
ucudemic field 
As evidence to meet this criterion, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's receipt of a Rockefeller 
Foundation Fellowship from 1991 to 1993 and NIH research grants. The record initially contained no 
information from the Rockefeller Foundation confirming that the peti 
lowship, counsel cited a lett 
and Lung Research Institute 
that he is an official of the Rockefeller Foundiition, or otherwise explain his standing to attest to the 
mechanism by which fellowships are awarded. 
The director concluded that the selection for tht: fellowship was based on the merit of the proposal and 
could not be considered an award or prize for an achievement that has already been made. 
On appeal, counsel provided general information about the Rockefeller Foundation, noting that 75 
roposals "cannot be considered." Counsel subsequently quoted extensively from Dr. 
letter, concluding that as a scientist, he is able to evaluate the significance of the fellowship. 
The AAO noted that while the fellowship materials submitted do indicate that the foundation receive 
more than 12,000 proposals for grants each year and does not consider 75 percent of them, it further 
states that the 75 percent cannot be considered "because their purposes fall outside the Foundations' 
program guidelines." More significantly, the .4AO noted that the materials are discussing grants to 
organizations, not fellowships for recent graduates. In fact, the materials state that "as a matter of policy, 
the Foundation does not give money for personal aid to individuals." While such language is ambiguous, 
the AAO concluded that it did not support thc claim that the Rockefeller Foundation itself was the 
institution that selected the beneficiary for the fellowship. 
Further, the AAO concluded that counsel had not supported the implication in his appellate brief that 
every scientist is an expert on the requirements for obtaining Rockefeller Feliowships. Finally, the AAO 
concurred with the director that a fellowship based on a research proposal is not an award or prize 
recognizing and honoring past achievements as outstanding. 
Similarly, the AAO concluded that the petitioner's NM grants could not serve to meet this criterion. Every 
successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from 
somewhere. Obviously the past achievements OF the principal investigator and, perhaps even other key 
personnel, are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is 
capable of perfontling the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund 
future research, and not to honor or recognize past achievements. 
On motion, the petitioner addresses the AAO's concern regarding the lack of evidence that the beneficiary 
ever received the Rockefeller Fellowship. Specifically, the petitioner submits a letter from Lynda Mullen, 
Corporate Secretary for the foundation, confirming that the petitioner held a "Special Postdoctoral 
Fellowship" from the foundation fiom May 15, 1991 though November 30, 1993, that allowed him to 
receive "advanced training.'' ~sfurther asserts that "potential fellows are awarded funding only 
after serious consideration of their credentials, and of both the importance and substance of their work." 
While this letter now confirms that the beneficiary did receive this fellowship, it fails to address the MO's 
other concern that fellowships that fund future work or training are not awards or prizes for outstanding 
achievements. Nor does counsel address that concern in his brief. Thus, the petitioner has not overcome all 
of the AAO's concerns regarding the evidence submitted to meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associution.~ in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements oftheir members 
The AAO spent two and half pages detailing the requirements of the associations of which the 
beneficiary is a member, such as an interest in the field, degrees, and sponsorship, and addressing 
counsel's assertions, including his assertion that mere participation in the field is "outstanding." As 
stated by the AAO, the plain language of the regulation requires membership in an organization whose 
membership requirements include, at a minimum, achievements that would normally be considered 
outstanding by experts in the field. Moreover, statutory construction includes looking at the plain 
meaning of the words used. See INS v. Cardo::u-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 43 1 (1987). The regulation 
requires membership in an organization where membership is limited to those with "outstanding 
achievements." 
Consistent with the relatively exclusive nature ol'the classification sought, most professional associations 
do not require outstanding achievement as a condition of membership; instead, their requirements are 
simpler and more readily met; such as payment of dues, a minimum level of education andlor experience 
in a given field, etc. The AAO concluded that the unambiguous membership requirements for the 
associations of which the beneficiary is a member do not even remotely support counsel's 
characterizations of those requirements as highly exclusive. Attainment of a doctoral degree is not an 
"outstanding achievement" by any rational definition of "outstanding." A doctoral degree, while 
requiring concerted and prolonged effort, is nr:vertheless the expected and predictable outcome of a 
course of study. 
Similarly, endorsement by existing members is not an outstanding achievement, and there is no 
indication that a prospective member's sponsors must themselves be nationally or internationally 
recognized. The AAO noted that counsel acknowledged that one of the associations has more than 
10,000 members, but does not explain how an association with a narrow focus can grow to such size 
while admitting only those with distinction in the field. 
The AAO further rejected membership in an association whose membership 1s only limited by career 
choice. By definition, every scientific researcher is "engaged in a scientific research activity." Counsel 
offered no explanation for his claim: "Only scient~sts or scientists to be are able to become members, 
which are de facto reduced to outstanding individuals." If all scientists are considered outstanding, the 
classification sought is rendered meaningless. 
Counsel's only response on motion is as follows: 
We will not address this issue as it has been amply documented. We nonetheless contend 
that [the beneficiary] is a member of organizations that require outstanding achievements of 
their members. 
Our concerns with the evidence relating to this criterion were extensively set forth in our previous decision. 
The discussion carefully and exhaustively ana1yzt:d all of the membership requirements of the associations 
of which the beneficiary is a member and addressed all of counsel's assertions relating to that evidence. As 
counsel offers no rebuttal of that discussion on motion, we hereby incorporate that discussion into this 
decision and find no need to add further comment. 
Published material in professional publicattons 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 
necessuly trunslation 
On motion, counsel does not challenge our previous assertion that the citations of the beneficiary's articles 
do not constitute published material about the ben'efrciary. We reaffirm that conclusion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individuully or on a panel, as the judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied academic field 
Counsel initially claimed that the beneficiary mei, this criterion but the petitioner submitted no evidence to 
support that claim. In response to the director's obsewation that no such evidence had been submitted 
initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from Dr an assistant professor at the petitioning 
institution. asserts that he manuscripts by journal editorial 
those requests to the beneficiary, his collaborator. 
The director noted the lack of evidence that the editors of the journals specifically requested that the 
beneficiary review the articles and concluded that the petitioner had not established- 
meets this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserted that the director had failed to consider Dr. 
expertise in the field. 
The AAO concluded: 
Regardless of any expertise &=has in the beneficiary's field, it remains that he 
is the beneficiary's supervisor and collaborator. While evidence submitted for each 
criterion need not establish international recognition on its own, the criteria would be 
meaningless as evidentiary standards for demonstrating international recognition if CIS did 
not evaluate whether the evidence submitted for each criterion was even remotely 
indicative of or consistent with international recognition. We simply cannot accept 
counsel's implication that the assignmen1 of a reviei request specifically~addressed to the 
beneficiary's supervisor is any way indicative of or consi e beneficiary's own 
international recognition. The issue is not whether Dr. has an international 
reputation. The petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's own international 
recognition independent of Dr 
F 
The beneficiary does not attain international 
recognition simply by working or someone who receives requests to review articles and 
assisting with that responsibility. 
Finally, we cannot ignore that scientific joumals are peer reviewed and rely on many 
scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; most peer 
reviewers do not enjoy international recognition. Without evidence that sets the 
beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an 
unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial 
number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary meets this c1.i tenon. 
On motion, counsel merely lists the papers reviewed by the beneficiary and discusses the nature of the 
journals. Such a response does not address any of the AAO's concerns. As such, we reaffirm our finding 
regarding this criterion. 
Evidence oj'rhe alien 's original scientific or sr::holarly research contributions to the acudemicfield 
In his initial cover letter, counsel listed several alleged contributions made by the beneficiary relating to 
lymphoma, breast cancer and kidney transplants. The assertions of counsel, however, do not constitute 
evidence. 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). Counsel asserted that his 
assertions are supported by letters from "leading individuals in his field, as well as recognized individuals in 
the field as described below." As noted by the MO, however, the letters are all fiom researchers and 
professors at the petitioning institution and a cclllaborator from the University of Maryland on research 
presented at the Third International Conference on Sodium Calcium Exchanger, New York Academy of 
Sciences, in 1995. 
The AAO fwther noted that none of the letters submitted initially mention any work performed by the 
beneficiary relating to lymphoma, breast cancer, or kidney transplants. Rather, the beneficiary's work 
appears to have focused on fertility, cardiology, and gastrology. Most recently, the beneficiary has focused 
on a receptor active during kidney inflarnmatioln, but the evidence submitted initially did not support 
counsel's assertion that this work has applications in kidney transplantation. In response to the director's 
specific request for additional documentation of the beneficiary's work in the areas specified by counsel, 
counsel asserts that none of the references discussed the cancer and hdney research because it had yet to be 
published. 
The petitioner submitted a new letter from Dr a professor at the petitioning institution, 
discussing these areas of research. sserts that the beneficiary's gastrology work "has helped to 
improve the diagnostic malignant neoplasm, including Basal cell carcinoma, 
Trichoblastic carcinoma, Melanoma, Squamous (:ell carcinoma, granular cell tumor (which has malignant 
variants), cutaneous lymphoma, and actinic keratosis (a precancerous lesion)." murther states that 
the beneficiary performed some basic research modifying the technique for isolating kidne measangial 
cells that provide critical information about the suitability of the kidney for transplant. Droncedes, 
however, that the above results have yet to be pu.bIished. Thus, the MO concluded-that this work is not 
evidence indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. iit 49. 
The AAO concluded that the remaining reference letters mostly provide general praise of the beneficiary 
and the attest to the importance of his area of research with little discussion of any specific contributions or 
explanation of the significance of those contributicms. The AAO then provided several examples. 
The AAO noted that in his final decision, the director determined that the cancer research on which counsel 
focuses had yet to be published and concluded that such work could not be considered a contribution to the 
field. On page four of his appellate brief, counst:l stated that the director's conclusion on this criterion is 
"particularly errant," but failed to specifically address the director's concerns other than to assert in 
conclusion that the beneficiary "has contributed greatly to the field of biochemistry through extensive 
writings, developments, reviews and mostly through research." 
The AAO acknowledged the value of the beneficiary's research, but noted 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. The AAO concluded that the record did not establish that the beneficiary's work 
represented a groundbreaking advance in microbiology. While letters from supervisors and collaborators 
are important in providing details about the beneficiary's role in various projects, they cannot by 
themselves establish the beneficiary's internationa1 recognition. 
On motion, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's. citation record establishes his contributions to the field. 
As noted in our previous decision, the record does contain evidence of moderate citation. That evidence 
was considered in evaluating the significance of'the beneficiary's publications. The regulations include 
original contributions, 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(l:), and scholarly articles, 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F), as 
two separate criteria. The requirement that a beneficiary meet at least two criteria would be meaningless 
if authorship of scholarly articles sufficiently indicative of international recognition necessitated a 
finding that the beneficiary meets the contributions criterion. 
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 clteria is to demonstrate that 
the beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reason that the 
beneiiciary'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 "unoripnal." 
It remains that the record lacks letters from experts outside the beneficiary's immediate circle of 
colleagues explaining the significance of the beneficiary's alleged contributions and explaining how 
these contnbutions have influenced the field internationally. 
Evidence of the alien's uuthorship of schcllarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the acudemicfield 
The AAO discussed the beneficiary's publication record and noted that the director did not consider the 
beneficiary's citation history under this criterion. The AAO concluded that even if the beneficiary's 
moderate citation history was indicative of minimal international recognition, the beneficiary would meet no 
more than one criterion. Referencing its previous conclusions, the AAO reiterated that the beneficiary falls 
far short of meeting any other criteria. 
On motion, counsel continues to assert that the beneficiary meets this criterion. We do not contest that 
assertion. As stated in our previous decision, however, the beneficiary does not meet any other criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary i:s a talented researcher, who has won the respect of his 
collaborators, employers, and mentors. The record, however, stops far 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. 
$ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the previous decision of the AAO will 
be affirmed, and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The AAO's decision of December 24,2003 is affirmed. The petition is denied.