dismissed EB-1B Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identii).iag Csta ddrt~d to 
prevent ckixxiy m-i..cirmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
- 
Office ofAdminisfrafive Appeals, 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
LIN 07 242 53361 
 Date: APR 2 0 2009 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
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. 9 103.5 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
5ohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative 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 research 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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
principal scientist. 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 and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
petitioner has not overcome the director's valid concerns. Moreover, we find that the petitioner, at the 
time of filing, did not employ at least three full-time researchers in addition to the beneficiary. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
U.S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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 -- 
Page 3 
(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 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
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 July 26, 2007 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of chemical engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least 
three years of 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 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, 199 1) 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
The director concluded that the beneficiary had judged the work of others pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Thus, the petitioner need only establish that the beneficiary meets one additional 
criterion. The petitioner claims that the beneficiary satisfies the following additional criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academicjeld. 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required evidence 
of a major international award. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. 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. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser7' nationally or internationally recognized awards for a 
separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Initially, counsel asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion through a teaching award, technical 
paper awards, a graduate student poster award, a student "gold medal," scholarships and grants. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 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). Similarly, the beneficiary's self-serving curriculum vitae 
cannot be considered evidence of her receipt of awards. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). The initial evidence submitted in support of 
this criterion included a "University Medal" from Jadavpur University for first standing on the Master 
of Chemical Engineering examination and a certificate from Chemcon 2001 a for second place oral 
presentation in the Modeling and Simulation and Control session. Counsel also references a letter from 
- a professor at the University of Akron, who asserts that the beneficiary "was 
awarded prestigious grants as the Senior Research Engineer working [for the petitioner] based in NE 
Ohio." 
We hrther note that - a research fellow at BASF Catalysts, LLC, asserts that the 
beneficiary was "awarded the prestigious SBIR project" from [the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)] 
to design a sulfur sorbent to reduce sulfur from sulk laden logistic fuel. - manager with 
the Ohio Department of Development, asserts that the petitioner received a competitive Third Frontier 
1 
 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. 
Fuel Cell Program (TFFCP) grant for a project conducted by the beneficiary as the primary investigator. 
According to, the project was one of nine projects funded out of 36 proposals. -1 
Wender, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the beneficiary's Ph.D. 
dissertation committee, asserts that the beneficiary "has been rewarded three different projects in energy 
research and reactor design as well as support from the State of Ohio," the U.S. Army and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF). 
On April 25,2008, the director requested additional evidence relating to this criterion. Specifically, the 
director noted that scholarships, fellowships and awards that are open only to students cannot serve to 
meet this criterion and requested evidence from the entity issuing any awards to the beneficiary 
establishing the criteria for the award and the scope and nature of the competition. 
In response, counsel referenced the beneficiary's curriculum vitae as evidence that she had received 
grants from NSF. Counsel also referenced a letter from, a professor emeritus at the 
Indian Institute of Technology, who asserts that the beneficiary, according to her curriculum vitae, "has 
recently received a very high quality peer reviewed award in the form of a grant (as principal 
investigator) from [the] National Science Foundation." conc the grant, "by itself 
strongly indicates the excellence and outstanding character of her work." does not profess any 
first hand knowledge of the grant being awarded to the beneficiary. 
The director concluded that the grant was noteworthy but not outstanding as researchers are commonly 
financed through grants. On appeal, counsel asserts that all grants received by the petitioner, including 
those for which the beneficiary is the principal investigator, "contain the requirement that a researcher 
of outstanding ability and reputation (National and International) act as Principal Investigator." The 
petitioner submits a letter from its president, -, who also asserts that 
consideration for grant proposals includes an evaluation of the principal investigator's outstanding 
academic achievements, business skills and specific knowledge in the field of interest. For the first 
time, the petitioner submits an actual grant from NSF listing the beneficiary as the principal 
investigator. The grant, however, postdates the date of filing by three months. The petitioner must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg71. Comm'r. 1971). The petitioner did not submit any materials 
from NSF confirming that research grants are awarded in recognition of outstanding achievements in 
the field. 
We concur with the director that scholarships are generally based on past academic achievement, not 
for accomplishments in a field of endeavor. While 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3)(A) references outstanding 
achievements in one's academic field, 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(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 and the beneficiary's student award are simply not evidence of 
international recognition in the field. 
 Rather, they represent high academic achievements in 
comparison with her fellow students. 
Regarding the beneficiary's research grants, we also concur with the director that research grants are 
awarded primarily to hd a scientist's future work. 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 are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to 
be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a 
research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past 
achievement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary had personally received an 
NSF grant prior to the date of filing. Moreover, for the reasons stated above, a grant, even a 
competitive grant, is not an award or prize recognizing an outstanding achievement. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the 
contributions be of "major significance." While true, 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. 
5 204.5(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. 
In a similar vein, while the evidence that the beneficiary is named on a patent application is indicative 
of original work, the very existence of a patent application or even a patent does not show that the 
beneficiary's invention is more significant than those of others in her field. To establish the 
significance of the beneficiary's work, we review the evidence of record, including the numerous 
reference letters submitted. 
The director concluded that 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. We note that 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. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The director noted that many of the letters were from the 
beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues and, thus, were not indicative of international 
recognition. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director inappropriately disregarded the letters, many of which 
according to counsel, were from disinterested experts and should not require "objective" supporting 
evidence. Counsel opines that assigning less evidentiary weight to reference letters prepared in 
support of the petition is "innately illogical" and makes it "implausible for an alien to ever qualify" 
under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Counsel further asserts that the letters were consistent with 
the remaining evidence. 
We do not question the usefulness of reference letters in explaining the nature of an alien's work and 
even how it has influenced the field. Such letters are also useful in explaining the significance of 
more objective evidence of record. In evaluating the reference letters, however, 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 her reputation and who have applied her work are 
the most persuasive. Ultimately, however, we concur with the director that objective evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries should support the necessarily subjective 
opinions expressed in letters 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 her Master of Science in Chemical Engineering from Jadavpur University in 
Calcutta, India in 1999. She spent several months as a research fellow at Ruhr University in Germany 
in 2000. In 2004, she received her Ph.D. in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering from the University 
of Pittsburgh. Since that time, the beneficiary has been working for the petitioner in Ohio. The 
petitioner submitted letters from 16 members of her field attesting to her original work. Of those 
letters, all but five are from the beneficiary's own coworkers, professors, collaborators, other members 
of the field in Ohio, the petitioner's customers and a fellow conference organizer who had the 
beneficiary recommended to him based on her organizing skills. Of the five independent letters, one is 
from, Director of the Center of Catalytic Science and Technology, who asserts 
that he became aware of the beneficiary's work through his association with her advisor. 
- a professor at Ruhr University, explains that the university's Department of 
Geology, Mineralogy and Geophysics is the only laboratory where nanoscale thin film techniques are 
routinely used to study kinetics of mineralogical reaction and diffusion rates under high pressures and 
temperatures.. asserts that the beneficiary was a graduate student participant during the 
development of the thin films and "was responsible for many of the fundamental calibrations and 
managements of the setup procedure." While -asserts that her protocols and 
calibrations continue to be used for regular measurements at the University of Ruhr, he does not explain 
how her work at the university has influenced the field as a whole. The petitioner did not submit any 
articles authored by her during this time or evidence that those articles have proven influential. Nor has 
she demonstrated that her work there led to any patents. 
, the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor, asserts that the beneficiary joined him while he served 
on the faculty of the Max-Planck Institute for Coal Research and then followed him to the University of 
Pittsburgh. states: 
At the University of Pittsburgh, [the beneficiary] focused on the use of novel 
"microchemical" reactors for the development of ultra-clean combustion processes and 
involved advanced numerical simulation techniques for the investigation of coupling 
mechanisms between homogeneous and heterogeneous reaction pathways in this type of 
reactors as well as semi-empirical calculations for the energetics of surface reactions, 
based on Shustorovich's UBI-QEP method. 
elaborates that the beneficiary performed computational, design and manufacturing work in 
the university's Petersen Institute of Nanoscience and En ineerin (PINSE), recently ranked as one of 
the leading nanoscience centers in the United States. praises the beneficiary's research 
publications reporting her work at the university and asserts that he was awarded a CAREER award 
from NSF based on results from the beneficiary's thesis. 
 While the record contains an article 
coauthored by the beneficiary and 
 it has only been cited a single time. Thus, even assuming 
that the potential of this single article, rather than 
 entire career, was initially considered 
significant enough to warrant receiving a CAREER award, the record contains no evidence 
that this article has actually impacted the field. 
Page 9 
another member of the beneficiary's dissertation committee at the University of 
Pittsburgh, asserts that the beneficiary's research has scientific and industrial interest, but fails to name 
any industrial entity other than the petitioner that has applied the beneficiary's work. While Dr. 
asserts that the beneficiary is one of only a few researchers focused on detailed elementary step 
kinetics and boundary problem issues, the issue of whether there are other available workers with the 
necessary education and experience to perform the beneficiary's job is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Department of Labor. Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 22 1 (Comm'r. 
1998). 
- discusses the beneficiary's work for the petitioner. 
 Specifically, the petitioner 
delivers high-technology catalytic and heat-exchanger solutions to the energy industry, particularly to 
the growing hydrogen production and fuel cell sectors. explains that the beneficiary 
is the company's catalyst technology expert, an integral part of the company's technical and 
management team whose technical insight has enabled the company's recent growth. Dr. 
asserts that the company could not survive without the beneficiary. While we do not 
question : on these points, at issue is not whether the beneficiary is replaceable at the 
petitioning company, but whether she enjoys international recognition in general and, more specific to 
this criterion, for her original contributions. We note that the classification sought, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, does not take into account the employer's specific needs, however legitimate. 
More specifically- asserts that the beneficiary began working with the petitioner's 
expert on the ability to "stick" catalyst materials on the surface of stainless steel foils and now exceeds 
this expert. According to the beneficiary "devised and implemented several new 
proprietary strategies that we now use in our products." Oh further asserts that the 
beneficiary has developed relationships with experts at institutions in 
 lo an elsewhere that she uses 
"to provide clues to guide her research work and make potential contributions for the collaborative 
work with them." While - asserts that these relationships demonstrate that her work 
has impacted a large pool of researchers in the field, as will be discussed in more detail below, the 
record lacks evidence of such an influence, such as letters from independent experts outside of Ohio 
who have been influenced bv her work or wide citation of the beneficiarv's work. Finallv. Dr. 
, J 
asserts that the beneficiary's work has allowed the petitioner to reduce its use of the 
expensive metal Rhodiumin catalysts by a factor of ten. 
The record, however, lacks evidence that this achievement has been recognized in the field, such as 
trade journals reporting on the beneficiary's work in this area or even the petitioner's breakthrough 
technology in this regard. The petitioner did submit the "In the News" page from its website containing 
excerpts from three articles and a press release. The first excerpt is from the Wright Fuel Cell Group 
Newsletter reporting the collaboration between the petitioner and the University of Toledo. The record 
contains no evidence regarding the circulation of this newsletter. The second excerpt is from the 
Record Courier. This excerpt only relates to the petitioner's receipt of grant money.   he record lacks 
evidence regarding the circulation of this publication or evidence that the article reported on any 
significant breakthroughs in catalysts by the petitioner or the beneficiary. Finally, the third excerpt is 
Page 10 
from the Tribune Chronicle and relates to the "hopes" of a "local inventor." Once again, the record 
lacks evidence that this paper is internationally or even nationally circulated and appears to relate to the 
promise of the work being done at the petitioning company rather than remarking on the significance of 
the work it has already completed. 
The petitioner submits two letters from its clients, - Manager of Technology 
Transfer at Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. in Pennsylvania, and Venkat Venkataraman, Vice 
President of Product Development at Bloomenergy in California. explains that Air Products 
and Chemicals, Inc. is the largest merchant hydrogen producer that is "leading the way to a hydrogen 
economy infrastructure with Air Products' hydrogen fueling stations for hydrogen powered vehicles 
now in over 70 locations." asserts that in 2003 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. began 
collaborating with the petitioner to develop a more efficient method for producing hydrogen by 
- - 
replacing the ceramic 
 currently used with catalytically coated metal -substrates. 
further states that his company expects to perform a field test of the new method within the next 24 
months and that the beneficiary has been "a critical contributor to this effort, particularly in the area of 
developing the catalytic coatings." concludes that the beneficiary is indispensable to 
commercializing this technology. The record, however, lacks evidence that these substrates are 
internationally considered outstanding contributions in the field, such as news reports in trade journals 
or the general media reporting on the breakthrough of using catalytically coated metal substrates. 
. explains that Bloomenergy began working with the petitioner in 2004 when the 
petitioner began making fuel reformers for Bloomenergy's 5 kilowatt fuel cell system. 
 Dr. 
affirms that the petitioner has been "very adept at keeping pace with our research and 
development program" and has a "unique breadth and depth of knowledge regarding catalysts, methods 
for adhering catalysts to metal surfaces and the ability to create a broad range of structure designs that 
give us a great deal of flexibility in designing our fuel cell systems." asserts that 
Bloomenergy's fuel cells "will be" sold worldwide and that the petitioner "will be" a big player in 
supplying component parts to the fuel cell industry with life cost advantages over competing products. 
- concludes that the beneficiary is critical to the petitioner. Once again, the record 
lacks evidence of the significance of the work being done by Bloomenergy or the petitioner such as any 
trade or general media reports on the significance of this work. 
, the beneficiary's collaborator at the University of Toledo, asserts that the 
beneficiary "has been instrumental in the design of the spiral stackable reactor" to make the conversion 
of natural gas to hydrogen more efficient. explains that the beneficiary's coating 
technology is critical to the success of the system and a unique capability provided by the petitioner. 
Once again, however, the record lacks evidence that this work is recognized internationally in the field 
as outstanding, such as trade journal articles or other media (especially outside of Ohio) remarking on 
the beneficiary's work in this area, the petitioner's breakthrough technology or the unique work being 
performed at the University of Toledo. While asserts that he and the beneficiary have 
published four articles together, the record lacks any evidence that this work has been cited, let alone 
widely and frequently cited. 
Page 11 
Vice President for Alternative Energy Technology at EMTEC in Ohio, praises the 
beneficiary's work on products that are projected to come on the market and prove influential. He also 
praises her poster presentation at a conference. These asserts are too general to explain how the 
petitioner's contributions are internationally recognized as outstanding. 
speculates that the petitioner's catalyst development effort "could result in an effective 
energy solution and praises her articles without explaining how they have been influential. As will be 
discussed in more detail, only one of the petitioner's articles has been cited and that article was only 
cited a single time. 
- Director of Research and Development at Saint Gobain NorPro in Ohio, praises 
one of the beneficiary's oral conference presentations and asserts that the beneficiary's work has 
"radically improved our knowledge base in this field." While asserts that only the best 
quality papers are approved for oral presentation at this conference, we note that the beneficiary is one 
of 28 authors listed on a page that does not even include all of the "C's." While some of the authors are 
presenting only poster presentations, 16 oral presentations are listed on the page. further 
asserts that the beneficiary has "an unusual degree of recognition for a scientists working in this 
extremely vital research area" and "international exposure" due to having worked in India, German and 
the United States. We cannot conclude that Congress intended to characterize international recognition 
for this classification of aliens as merely having worked or studied in more than one country. 
The record does contain letters from five independent experts. 
 asserts that he met the 
beneficiary at a conference and is basing his opinion on her published work. 
 asserts 
generally that the beneficiary's work on hydrogen production "has impacted the field significantly," 
but provides no examples of how the field has changed in light of the beneficiary's work or of 
independent laboratories using the beneficiary's methods. does assert that her work 
helped him to improve his own work, but provides no specifics. The record lacks evidence that Dr. 
has cited the beneficiary's work. 
 In a second letter, 
 opines that the 
beneficiary's project synthesizing a sulfur sorbent for sulfur laden logistic fuel "will reduce the high 
sulfur content to a minimal level" and "will have a huge impact on [the] US Army where they will 
no longer face the constraint [of] having a continuous energy supply [on the] battle field." The 
- - 
record does not contain any letters from high level officials or anyone else with the U.S. Army 
confirming the importance of the beneficiary's work to the U.S. Army. While - 
concludes that the beneficiary "outshines other similarly qualified researchers of her age group," that 
is not the standard for the classification sought. 
 While 
 also concludes that the 
beneficiary's work has "garnered an unusual degree of recognition for a scientist working in this 
extremely significant field," examples of this recognition are extremely general, 
somewhat speculative and do little to support his conclusion. 
a professor at Louisiana State Universit 
 asserts that he met the beneficiary at a 
conference one month before authoring his letter. 
 provides general praise of the 
beneficiary's presentation and overall knowledge and expresses his belief that the beneficiary "will 
help to address our Nation's lack of researchers to help solve our critical need for clean energy." Dr. 
provides no examples of how the beneficiary has impacted the field or her international 
recognition as outstanding based on her contributions. He does not claim to have been influenced 
himself by the beneficiary's work. 
he was introduced to the beneficiary through a researcher at the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory "due to her great organizational skills." While he mostly discusses the beneficiary's 
work as session chair for two sessions at American Chemical Society conferences, he also asserts 
that one of the beneficiary's presentations "made a huge impact on the attendees." He does not 
provide any specifics regarding the significance of the information in this presentation or how it has 
impacted the field and is recognized internationally as outstanding. Vague assertions of an impact 
without any specifics explaining how the work has impacted the field are insufficient. 
asserts that he initially became familiar with the beneficiary from her 2006 article in the 
Journal of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and that subsequently another 
professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, invited the beneficiary to give a 
presentation at his department. mpraises the beneficiary's presentation but does not provide 
specific examples of how the presentation has impacted the work done at the institute. Rather, he 
asserts that her presentation demonstrated that she is "a very competent mechanical engineer as well 
besides [sic] being an excellent chemical engineer, which she is by training." He also asserts that the 
beneficiary has given presentations at other Indian institutions, but does not explain how these 
presentations have impacted the work being done at these institutions. 
Finally, 
 asserts that he became aware of the beneficiary's doctoral work through his own 
association with the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor. 
 praises the beneficiary's 2006 article 
in the Journal of AIChE, asserting that it provides novel estimates of the intrinsically safe conditions 
for operating catalytic microreactors for highly explosive hydrogen oxidation reaction in the premier 
journal for chemical engineering research. The record, however, lacks evidence that this article has 
been cited by any researcher, independent of the beneficiary or otherwise. also asserts 
that subsequent work by the beneficiary is "pioneering" and "novel" or even "an important 
milestone," but fails to provide examples of this work being applied in the field. 
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 published 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. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly booh or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary, as of the date of filing, had authored six 
published articles and had presented her work both orally and as a poster presentation at conferences. 
The petitioner submitted requests for reprints for some of her work, but these do not demonstrate that 
her work was ultimately found usehl by those researchers. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that a single article had cited one of her own 
articles. The director concluded that authorship of scholarly articles is routine in the beneficiary's field 
and concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the impact of her published articles. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the peer-review process limits publication to the most significant articles and that 
citation by others "is specified as a completely separate criteri[on]." 
Counsel appears to be suggesting that citations should be considered separately under the criterion set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), which requires published material in professional publications 
written by others about the alien's work in the academic field. Citations, however, do not fit under this 
criterion as they are not primarily "about the alien's work" but the author's own work or, in the case of 
a review article, about the field in general. Rather, citations are best considered under this criterion as 
evidence of the influence of the beneficiary's published work. 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on April 16, 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.~ov/oco/ocos066.htm. The handbook expressly states 
that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 
research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for 
faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. 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. 
In this matter, the petitioner has provided only a single citation of the beneficiary's work and no 
evidence that it is assigned reading in course curricula internationally or even locally. Thus, the 
beneficiary's publication record is merely evidence of international exposure rather than international 
recognition. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of her collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for her 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. While the director 
found that the beneficiary meets the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), much of this 
evidence was either only moderately significant, such as evidence of participation in the peer-review 
process that requires the volunteer services of countless researchers, or local, such as evidence that the 
beneficiary's own collaborator at the University of Toledo requested her assistance in evaluating theses. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
Page 14 
Beyond the decision of the director, section 203(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III), directs that an alien may qualify as a priority worker based on an offer of 
employment from a private research department, division, or institute, only "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 requirement of three full-time research 
employees is also set forth in 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(C)(iii). 
The petitioner initially asserted that its three full-time researchers included its President and Vice 
President of Research in addition to the company's Mechanical Engineering 
manager. The director requested evidence regarding the percentage of time spent on research for 
these individuals. In response, the petitioner submitted evidence that its President and Vice 
President of Research spend less than one third of their time on research. The response does indicate 
that and the product engineer, spend 100 percent of their time on research. 
The other three employees dedicated full-time to "research" are the "Tech 11," the "Lab Technician" 
and the beneficiary. 
The job duties for the Tech I1 and the Lab Technician are described as developing and testing 
mechanical structures and systems and "testing." The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, in describing science technicians, explains their duties as follows: 
Chemical technicians work with chemists and chemical engineers, developing and 
using chemicals and related products and equipment. Generally, there are two types of 
chemical technicians: research technicians who work in experimental laboratories and 
process control technicians who work in manufacturing or other industrial plants. 
Many chemical technicians working in research and development conduct a variety of 
laboratory procedures, from routine process control to complex research projects. For 
example, they may collect and analyze samples of air and water to monitor pollution 
levels, or they may produce compounds through complex organic synthesis. Most 
process technicians work in manufacturing, testing packaging for design, integrity of 
materials, and environmental acceptability. Often, process technicians who work in 
plants focus on quality assurance, monitoring product quality or production processes 
and developing new production techniques. A few work in shipping to provide 
technical support and expertise. 
See http://www.bls.nov/oco/ocosl15.htm (accessed April 2,2009 and incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
Chemical engineering researchers, on the other hand, perform the following: 
Chemical engineers apply the principles of chemistry to solve problems involving 
the production or use of chemicals and biochemicals. They design equipment and 
processes for large-scale chemical manufacturing, plan and test methods of 
manufacturing products and treating by-products, and supervise production. Chemical 
engineers also work in a variety of manufacturing industries other than chemical 
manufacturing, such as those producing energy, electronics, food, clothing, and paper. 
They also work in health care, biotechnology, and business services. Chemical 
engineers apply principles of physics, mathematics, and mechanical and electrical 
engineering, as well as chemistry. Some may specialize in a particular chemical 
process, such as oxidation or polymerization. Others specialize in a particular field, 
such as nanomaterials, or in the development of specific products. They must be 
aware of all aspects of chemicals manufacturing and how the manufacturing process 
affects the environment and the safety of workers and consumers. 
See http://www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature (accessed April 2, 2009 and incorporated into the 
record of proceedings). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) requires evidence that the private employer employ 
"at least three persons full-time in research positions." (Emphasis added.) 
 A comparison of 
chemical engineering researchers with those of laboratory technicians reveals that the technicians are 
not full-time research positions. For example, laboratory technicians' duties do not include the type 
of creative design and planning duties inherent to research positions. 
If the Tech I1 and the Lab Technician cannot be considered full-time researcher positions, we must 
consider whether the beneficiary herself might qualify as one of its full-time research employees. 
The alien beneficiary is currently employed in a nonimmigrant classification. 
Neither the statute nor the legislative history clearly indicates whether the alien beneficiary can 
himself be the third full time research employee for purposes of a private entity's eligibility to file a 
visa petition under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. H.Rep. 101-723(I), 1990 USCCAN 6710, 6739 
indicates that a private employer is eligible to file this petition "if there are at least three persons 
employed full-time in research." Like the statute itself, however, the legislative history neither 
endorses nor forecloses the possibility of including the beneficiary's position as one of the three 
research positions. Nor does the issue appear to have arisen during the rulemaking process. See 56 
Fed. Reg. 60,897 (Nov. 29, 1991) (final rule) and id, 30.703 (July 5, 1991) (proposed rule). 
That said, it is worth noting that section 203(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III), requires that "the alien seeks to enter the United States" to work for "a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer" that "employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities." The phrases "seeks to enter" and "employs at least 3 persons" are both in the 
present tense. If an alien researcher is currently outside the United States, and intends to enter the 
United States with an immigrant visa, then the prospective employer must already employ at least 
three full-time researchers in the relevant department, division, or institute. In such a case, the three 
researchers obviously do not include the alien. Thus, the statutory construction demonstrates that the 
Page 16 
alien seeks to become the fourth researcher in a company that already employs three other 
researchers. In instances where the alien is already in the United States as a nonimmigrant, and the 
alien has joined two other researchers to become the third researcher, then the employer does not 
satisfy the statutory construction. 
There is no regulatory or statutory justification for the arbitrary assumption that a company too small 
to petition for a worker who is still overseas can, nevertheless, petition for that same worker if the 
worker is already in the United States as a nonimmigrant. Therefore, the position held by the alien 
beneficiary shall not be counted as one of the three persons involved full-time in research activities. 
Even if the alien beneficiary is lawfully employed in a nonimmigrant classification, the petitioner 
may not count the alien beneficiary toward the requirement of "3 persons [employed] full-time in 
research activities." The apparent purpose of 203(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) is to limit this immigrant visa 
classification to well-established research institutes. If the - by definition temporary - employment 
of a nonimmigrant alien can be counted toward this requirement then it would appear that hiring 
three nonimmigrant aliens could make all three of them eligible. This result would, with little effort, 
render meaningless the requirement that the petitioner employ three employees.2 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that, as of the date of filing, it employed three 
individuals in full-time research positions. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the petition 
may not be approved. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, 
the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 
 Granted, for at least some nonimmigrant classifications, the position itself need not be temporary, but the 
alien must be coming temporarily to the United States.