dismissed EB-1B Case: Cell Biology And Physiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16402513 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 17, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner , a medical device company , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor 
or researcher "in the fields of Cell Biology and Physiology. " See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required , that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic 
field. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director overlooked or did not properly 
evaluate evidence in the record , and that this evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualifies under 
the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility , a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically , section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher 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 [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary received her Ph.D. in Biological and Biomedical Science froml I University in 
May 2015. From November 2015 until April 2018, she served as a Research and Development 
Scientist for.__ _____ _. The Beneficiary has been employed as a Principal Research Scientist 
with the Petitioner since April 2018. 2 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met two of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in her field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others and authorship of 
scholarly articles. As she therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the 
evidence of record when conducting the final merits determination. 
1 USCTS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 In its March 3 L 2020 letter accompanying the petition, the Petitioner stated multiple times that the Beneficiary is an 
outstanding researcher in "the fields of Cell Biolo~hysiology." However, on page 21 of the appeal brief, the 
Petitioner now asse11s that the Beneficiary's field isl________) Biology." A petitioner may not make material changes to a 
petition in an effo11 to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 
176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition. Academic field means "a body of specialized 
knowledge offered for study at an accredited U.S. university or institution of higher education." See 8 C.F.R ~ 204.5(i)(2). 
By regulatory definition, a body of specialized knowledge is larger than a very small area of specialization in which only 
a single course is taught or that is the subject of a very specialized dissertation. For example, it would be acceptable to 
conclude that a beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher in particle physics rather than physics in general, as 
long as it has been demonstrated that the claimed field is "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an 
accredited United States university or institution of higher education." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing that I , I Biology" 
is a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited U.S. university or institution of higher education. 
2 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence 3, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that she has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 4 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Beneficiary "is recognized internationally as an outstanding 
in her academic field based on a totality of the evidence." The Petitioner asserts that the "international 
reference letters" and "citations to [the Beneficiary's] published work should be sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that she is an outstanding researcher of international acclaim." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner challenges certain statements made by the Director in his analysis of the 
Beneficiary's reference letters. For example, the Director indicated that reference letters alone are 
"insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized in the academic field 
because it appears that these letters have been solicited by the Beneficiary for the sole purpose of 
supporting her immigrant petition." In response, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "had to ask 
her references to provide a reference letter on her behalf as busy world-renowned scholars do not send 
one another reference letters unprompted." While the statements in the Beneficiary's reference letters 
should be corroborated by evidence in the record, we agree with the Petitioner that such letters should 
not be discounted simply because they were obtained for the purpose of supporting this petition. 
Additionally, the Director stated that "the letters from independent experts ... appear to be fabricated 
by the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, or by Counsel." 5 Our review of the reference letters, however, does 
not support the Director's conclusion. The Petitioner states that it, the Beneficiary, and counsel were 
wrongfully accused of fabricating the letters. We agree with the Petitioner on this issue and withdraw 
the Director's unsubstantiated claim. 6 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's 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. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). Therefore, 
to the extent that the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language 
3 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 251& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard. we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
4 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's judging, 
research contributions. published and presented work, patents, and citation evidence, and explained why that evidence, as 
part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level. 
5 The Director's decision provided example quotations from three reference letters that included some similar wording. 
but the record is not supported by evidence showing that these letters were fabricated. 
6 The Director's problematic language on this issue, however, does not undermine the grounds for denial explained in the 
Director's remaining analyses of the Beneficiary's reference letters and research contributions. 
3 
requirements of specific evidentiary criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level, his analysis was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to 
the requested immigrant visa classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted an unsigned April 2020 letter from! I Associate Director of the I !University 
Office of Undergraduate Research, thanking the Beneficiary for "serving as a judge for th~ 
I ~ In this competition, undergraduate students atl__J 
University presented their projects which were evaluated based on background, engagement, and 
communication. Additionally, the Petitioner provided Fall 2019 emails the Beneficiary sent toD 
I !relating to her request for volunteer judging opportunities. 
The record also includes an email thanking the Beneficiary "for volunteering to judge at the 2020 
Science and Engineering Fair." This email indicates that that judges were '-----------~ assigned to review science fair projects for "Grades 4 and 5," as well as "Middle/High School 
Categories." 
In addition, the Petitioner provided two letters ( dated July 2017 and December 201 7 thankin the 
Beneficiary for attending and judging the Spring 2017 and Fall 2017 
~---~I Thi~~---~~s described in both letters as "a showcas~e_o_f ________ s_g_r_a-du_a_t-in_g__, 
seniors as they present their innovative projects designed and built during the .__ _____ __, 
Course." Furthermore, the Petitioner presented a March 2017 letter thanking the Beneficiary for her 
"service as a volunteer judge at the 69thl I Science and Engineering Fair. ... Over the years, 
this program has been one of the best student motivators to build interest and excitement for the study 
of the sciences." 
An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine 
if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for this classification. 7 
Regarding the Beneficiary's service as a judge at the aforementioned student competitions, the 
Petitioner has not shown that her participation in these events involved judging the work of others in the 
fields of cell biology and physiology. For example, the submitted documentation does not indicate 
whose work the Beneficiary judged, their stature in the field, or the specific research projects she 
evaluated. Nor has the Petitioner offered evidence indicatin the re uirements for selection as a ·ud e 
or the restige associated with servin as a ·udge at the .__--------,,.,....------,---------,.1 
i.r-----~~~-----,.------;=====.-' Science and Engineering Fair, the.___.....,,... __ ___, 
'------~-----_,, and th.,___~_. Science and Engineering Fair. The Petitioner did not, 
for instance, provide evidence demonstrating that the event organizers who invited the Beneficiary to 
serve as a judge reserve their invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as 
outstanding in the academic field. 
7 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
4 
The Petitioner also submitted an October 201 7 email from the Beneficiary to ~I------~ 
Professor of Cell Biology at I I Universry, in wlich the Beneficiary provided informal input on 
a research paper written by a person named '8 The Petitioner contends that this paper "was 
later published in the Journal of Molecular Biology of Cell."9 The Petitioner, however, has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's informal review of this paper at the request of her former Ph.D. 
supervisor shows that she is recognized internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that a book chapter the Beneficiary coauthored withl I 
entitled I I is evidence that she "has judged 
the work of others in the field." The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was "invited to be the 
primary author and thus review over 100 peer-reviewed articles id !Biology." While this book 
chapter is evidence of the Beneficiary's authorship of a scholarly article in the academic field, the 
Petitioner has not established that her authorship constitutes participation as the judge of the work of 
others. 10 For example, the Petitioner does not specify whose work the Beneficiary judged, or provide 
evidence that surveying and summarizing previously published studies involved judging others' work. 
Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that summarizing and publishing the current state of 
understanding on a research topic signifies that the Beneficiary is recognized internationally within 
the academic field as outstanding. 
Additionally, the Petitioner presented a March 2020 email fro~ I an organizer of the 
I I' conference, asking the Beneficiary for input regarding 
planninJ for a November 2020 event in Europe and a December 2020 event in the United States. Ms. 
I _ email to the Beneficiary stated: "I am looking to speak with industry, notified bodies and 
competent authorities about the key topics, challenges and guidance we should be covering in the 
agenda . . . . It would be great to have a call with you to discuss the programme for the conference in 
the Fall but also the content you would like to see on other platforms." In addition, the record includes 
a letter inviting the Beneficiary to serve as a speaker at I I I I Conference to be held I I 2020, in 
I Iv A." The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the Beneficiary's responses to these 
requests constituted participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others. 11 
Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that her participation or involvement in these events required, 
reflected, or resulted in her being recognized internationally as outstanding in her field. Regardless, 
the dates of these conferences all post-date the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
At issue here is the extent to which the Beneficiary's judging activities have required, reflected, or 
resulted in her being recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. As noted, the 
Petitioner did not establish the student competitions' requirements for selection of judges, and 
therefore we are unable to evaluate the Beneficiary's participation in light of those requirements. 
Furthermore, receiving invitations to review manuscripts, to provide input for conferences, or to speak 
at conferences based on subject matter expertise would not provide strong support for the petition, 
8 In his letter of support for the Beneficiary J I indicated that he has "known [the Beneficiary] since academic year 
2008/2009 when she joined my laboratory as a Ph.D. student." 
9 The record does not contain evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary has served as part of the formal peer review 
process for this journal. 
10 See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
11 See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
5 
because possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than being recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Therefore, although the record shows that the Beneficiary has judged local and regional student 
competitions, reviewed a paper at the request of her former Ph.D. supervisor, and received invitations 
to provide input or speak at conferences, this evidence does not demonstrate how her participation 
compares to or differentiates her from her peers in the field. Similarly, the evidence in the record does 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has received any international recognition for her service as a 
judge or reviewer. Without this or other evidence differentiating her from others in her field, 12 the 
Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's peer review experience contributes to establishing 
that she is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussing her research projects at the Petitioner and I I and atl I University under 
the guidance ofl 11 3 For example, regarding the Beneficiary's research involving assembly of 
.__ ________ _. I I stated that the Beneficiary "took a very creative and unusuall 
productive approach that revealed for the first time that thel I are assemb"""le=d=-=as::....-,-~-....,........ 
and then as are transported to the.___~ for final 
assembl~." Likewise,.__ _______ ~ professor of molecular medicine at University College 
I ]asserted that the Beneficiary's "research onl I assembly has laid the foundation 
for a multitude of studies inl I biology, as evidenced by the peer reviewed publications that have 
cited her work." 14 I farther indicated that the Beneficiary "was the first to show that the 
~------;:::::= __ is:..........:fo.:....ll-"-y_a.:..:.:s:...::.s..:...em___:_b __ le....:...d_,in the I I and then transported tol I for final 
assembly by th,..___-.-- ____ ___. machiner "and that this work led to "discovery of a~ 
I I protein, that selective! link for transport to the I I I t' Whil .__ _ ___. and~---~ both noted that the Beneficiary published her work 
in Cytoskeleton, thev did not offer specific examples of how her findings have affected the 
development ofl T" ] have been widely utilized in the cell biology field, or have 
otherwise influenced her field at a level commensurate with being internationally recognized as 
outstanding. 
In additio~ la resear\,<,W;:;.L.<LIL-_ ___LJ....L.1..1.J....!4,rsity inl I indicated that the Beneficiary 
demonstrated "for the first time that th is foll assembled in th and then 
transported to thel lfor final assembly by the'----.----.--------'machinery." 15.__ ___ ___. 
stated that this work "is a seminal discovery in the field o biology which became the founding 
evidence for subsequent discovery of al protein .that selectively link~ I to 
12 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field. such as 
evidence that she has completed reviews for a substantial number of distinguished j oumals or conferences relative to others 
in her field, served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, chaired prominent evaluation 
committees for reputable conferences. or served as the judge of prestigious competitions for experienced professionals in 
her field. 
13 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
14 According to February 2020 citation information the Petitioner submitted from Google Scholar, the Beneficiary's article 
in C ·toskeleton reporting this work had received 22 citations since its publication in 2014,__ _________ ~ 
15 coauthored a paper with the Beneficiary andl Ion this topic, entitled.__ __ ---,----..------~ 
.__ ____ ~ but the information the Petitioner provided from Google Scholar reflects that their paper has not received 
any citations since its publication in 2013. 
6 
I I for transport to the~---~--~ While I asserted that the 
Beneficiary's "discovery provided the basis for my research on th~ I I I that are integral to normal I I" he did not provide specific examples 
indicating that the Beneficiary's work has affected the field of cell biology in a substantial way that 
signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
Furthermore,! lorofessor of biology and biophysics at University ofl I 
stated that the Beneficiary's "studies i~ I provided a paradigm for understanding how 
and where these incredibly complex I (thpL...cap contain more than 15 different 
components} are actually built. This is a major issue in thel__Jfield and involves a large array of 
I factors."I I indicated that he has utilized the Beneficiary's findings "as the 
basis for my own work," but the record does not show that the Beneficiary's research studies relating 
tq lhave had a meaningful impact in the academic field, have been extensively cited 
by independent researchers, or have otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is recognized 
internationally as outstanding. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's paper in CrtoskeletonJ la research group leader at the 
.__ _______________ __.I Biology and Genetics in Germany, asserted that the 
Beneficiary's "research provides fundamental understanding on the mechanisms governing! I 
Whild I indicated that she has used the Beneficiary's 
findings "as the basis for some of the projects currently performed in my own laboratory," she he did 
not sufficiently detail in what ways the Beneficiary's findings have advanced the state ofresearch in 
the academic field or explain how the Beneficiary's work has influenced the wider field beyond the 
teams ofresearchers who have directly cited to the Beneficiary's articles. We recognize that research 
must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, 
presentation, funding, or academic credit, but not every research finding that broadens knowledge in 
a particular field renders an individual's work as outstanding or internationally recognized in her 
academic area. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's work for the Petitioned l the Petitioner's Vice President 
of Research, stated that the Beneficiary "has evaluated the safety of a multitude of medical devices" 
for her employer.I I further asserted that the Beneficiary has contributed the company's 
delivery of "best-in-class patient safety and care" for "New Product Introductions (NPI) projects 
relating to our.__ ______ ~business units." Additionally, I I stated that the 
Beneficiary "devised thorough testing strategies involving chemical characterization and biological 
tests to evaluate safety of these new devices. Her work reflected the rigor involved in showing safety 
of these new devices in a manner that is compliant with expectations ofregulatory bodies such as Food 
and Drug Administration." The Petitioner, however, has not established the level or scope of 
individual recognition the Beneficiary has received as a result of these safety contributions, and the 
evidence does not support a determination that participating in her company's internal product safety 
evaluation processes is sufficient to set the Beneficiary apart as outstanding from others in the field. 
While the Beneficiary's work has helped her company ensure the safety of its medical devices, the 
evidence does not show that her work has affected the academic field beyond the Petitioner and its 
manufacturing operations, or has otherwise influenced the field at a level rendering her internationally 
recognized as outstanding. 
7 
With respect to the Beneficiary's work involving development of new technologies to treat patients 
suffering from chronic pain,I l a technical leader at I I indicated 
that the Beneficiary created "pre-clinical biological tissue models of chronic pain for the development 
of novel products." 16 The record, however, does not show that the Beneficiary's tissue models have 
influenced the field beyond I rand its research operations, or have otherwise risen to the 
level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. 
In addition,~-----~stated that the Beneficiary "is an inventor on four patents that have been 
(1), or are about to be filed (3) as provisional patent applications with the U.S. Patent Office." The 
record includes evidence that the Beneficiary has been listed as a co-inventor on a "United States 
Patent Application Publication" (2019) and an "International Application Published Under the Patent 
Cooperation Treaty" (2018). While these published patent applications may eventually result in a 
patent, they do not constitute granted patents. Furthermore, a patent recognizes the originality of the 
idea, but it does not by itself demonstrate that the inventor has made a research contribution to the 
academic field that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement. Rather, the 
significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the evidence related 
to these inventions is limited to copies of the patent application publications themselves. The patent 
application publications are not further discussed in the Petitioner's statements or the expert opinion 
letters, and the record is otherwise lacking an explanation as to how these inventions have had an 
impact that is internationally recognized as outstanding in the Beneficiary's field. 
The Petitioner argues that it provided a substantial number of recommendation letters and that the 
Director's "dismissal of these reference letters ... was arbitrary and capricious." The expert 
testimonials offered by the Petitioner, however, do not contain sufficient information and explanation, 
nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's work is 
viewed by the overall academic field, rather than by the references she selected, as substantially 
influential or otherwise indicative of international recognition. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary's authorship of five scholarly articles shows that she 
is internationally recognized as outstanding. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
and article entitled I ~ was a book 
chapter in,__ _____ _. which was published byl fn Biology. 17 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's article was included in this book with articles written 
by "other highly acclaimed authors experts from prestigious academic institutions from around the 
world." As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of professors and researchers, the 
citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to 
16 The Beneficiary worked as a research and development scientist at~l ____ ~I from November 2015 until April 
2018. 
17 The Petitioner provided a letter fro ~-~---------~ stating that "[s]ince the ublication date of 
December 31, 2016, the sales count shows 357 print copies and 56 eBooks of the title ' The Petitioner 
also provided a letter from I I stating: 'Total sales to date for ~-----------' The Petitioner, however, has not shown· that these sales numbers render the Beneficiary as outstanding or internationally 
recognized in her field. We note thatl lincluded more than 20 chapters in addition to the Beneficiary and 
I Is chapter. The Petitioner has not established the level or scope of individual recognition the Beneficiary has 
received as a result of her particular book chapter, and the evidence does not support a determination that coauthoring such 
a book chapter is sufficient to set the Beneficiary apart as outstanding from others in the academic field. 
8 
determine the impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether her articles 
demonstrate that she is internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 18 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's February 2020 Google Scholar profile 
showing that her five research articles had received 53 cumulative citations. This Goo le Scholar 
information also indicated that the Beneficiary's two hi hest cited articles entitled 
2017 and 
,__ ______ ~ ____________________ .,...... (2014) each received 
31 and 22 citations, respectively. 19 The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these 
individual articles were self-citations by the Beneficiary or her coauthors. The Beneficiary's 
remaining three articles did not receive any citations. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny and on appeal, the Petitioner provided updated 
Google Scholar lists ( dated July 2020 and October 2020) reflecting a nominal increase of citations to 
the Beneficiary's two highest cited articles, but the Petitioner did not indicate how many of these 
additional citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(1 ), (12). Furthermore, without comparative statistical evidence indicating how often others 
in the Beneficiary's field are cited, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations 
received by her publications represents interest at a level consistent with outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 20 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted examples of five articles, includin international articles which 
cited to the Beneficiar 's work. 21 For instance a stud ublished b entitled 
cites to the 
Beneficiary and,__ _ ___, s paper, entitled 
The authors reference the Beneficiary and 's finding that "more than half of.___,..,...Proteins 
have not yet been assigned to a specific.___ ........... ---~' This article, however, does not distinguish 
or highlight the Beneficiary's work from the 54 other papers referenced in the article. 
Another article written b entitled 
cites to the to the Beneficiar 
and 's paper, entitled 
L-----------------r-----,,-..J' In the "Introduction" section of this article, the 
authors referenced the Beneficiary an 's paper, as well as papers from nine other research 
L...---~ 
teams, stating: 
18 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
19 Both of these aiticles were coauthored with her Ph.D. supervisor,! I 
20 We note that the Petitioner submitted Google Scholar profiles tori 1,1 land I I indicating 
that they each received 8927, 9362. and 9964 cumulative citations, respect1vely. In add1t10n, their profiles indicated that 
they each authored at least 25 aiticles which have been individually cited 100 times or more. 
21 These aiticles which cite to the Beneficiary's work are primarily about the authors' own research, and not the 
Beneficiary's work. As such, they do not constitute published material about the Beneficiary's work. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
9 
Central to the which ~--.-----------------------..__-~ act as latforms for 
~-------~---------~(Bhogaraju et al., 2013; Craft et 
al., 2015; Hao et al., 2011; Hou et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2007; Ishikawa et al., 2014; 
Mukhopadhyay et al., 2010; Qin et al., 2004, 2005; [the Beneficiary] et al., 2014; Wren 
et al., 2013). 
This article does not differentiate the Beneficiary's paper from the 84 other papers referenced in the 
article or otherwise demonstrate that her work is outstanding. The Petitioner has not established how 
citations of this kind translate into international recognition or outstanding achievement. The 
remaining three articles generally discuss the dozens of cited source articles in similar terms and there 
is no special emphasis on the Beneficiary's work. The submitted articles acknowledge her research 
contributions to the advancement of what appears to be an active field of research but are not 
indications that the Beneficiary has been recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic 
field. 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has taken 
some notice of her work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by 
her published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with 
being recognized internationally in her field. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the number of citations to the Beneficiary's work represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
As further documentation of published material relating to the Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner 
submitted an article available at Beyond the Professoriate (Beyondprof.com), entitled I I 
I ~-"22 The Petitioner, however, has not offered evidence demonstrating 
that participating in an interview for this career development website signifies international 
recognition or outstanding achievement in the Beneficiary's field. 
The record also includes documentation indicating that the Beneficiary received four "Impact A wards" 
from the Petitioner in 2019. While the Petitioner submitted company guidance relating to its "Impact 
Award Program," it has not offered supporting evidence showing the Beneficiary's Impact Awards' 
stature in the academic field. 23 These awards reflect internal recognition from the Beneficiary's 
employer rather than international recognition in her field. The Petitioner has not presented evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's Impact A wards have received a level of attention commensurate 
with being internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 
In addition, the Petitioner resented an Au ust 201 7 letter from the Program Coordinator for A wardee 
i h stating that the Beneficiary received anc=] 
~-------- award of $44,360 for the two-year period from July 1, 2011 until June 30, 
2013. The Petitioner also submitted 1 ~ information which states that this 
award is aimed at enhancing "the integrated research and clinical training of promising students who 
are matriculated in pre-doctoral or clinical health professional degree training programs and who 
22 The author of this article was not identified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
23 Nor has the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's Impact Awards are commensurate with "major prizes or awards 
for outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
10 
intend careers as scientists, physician-scientists or other clinician-scientists, or related careers aimed 
at improving global cardiovascular health." While the Petitioner provided information about the 
Beneficiary'~ I from thee=] it has not offered supporting evidence showing 
this award's stature in her field or its international significance. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that thisl I award, which fonds "research and clinical training" for "promising students," 
renders the Beneficiary internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 24 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted documentation of her membership in the American Society for 
Cell Biology, the American Society for Testing and Materials International, the Advanced Medical 
Technology Association, the American Pain Society, and the Healthcare Businesswomen's 
Association. The record, however, does not include evidence showing that these organizations require 
outstanding achievements of their members or that acceptance into their membership signifies 
international recognition in the Beneficiary's academic field. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled biomedical researcher, the Petitioner 
has not established that she stands apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction 
based on international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of the 
Beneficiary's work in the areas of cell biology, biochemistry, and physiology, including evidence of her 
awards, memberships, patent applications, research articles, citations to those articles by others in the 
field, her participation as a judge of others' work, the interview of her available at Beyondprof.com, 
and the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude that this documentation does not sufficiently 
establish that she has been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary 
criteria, and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A review of the totality of 
the evidence, however, does not establish that she is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
24 Nor has the Petitioner established that thi~ award (which is limited to graduate students in the early stages of their 
research career) constitutes a major prize or award for outstanding achievement in the academic field. See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
11