dismissed EB-1B Case: Chemistry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
~denw%datadekQd~ 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
in~~~$fkn of nersonaj pnjvacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY .--.\ 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP Q 8 2005 
LIN 04 012 53167 
IN RE: 
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. 3 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
ii 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a chemical research and manufacturing corporation. 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 
senior synthesis specialist (chemist). The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for classification as an 
outstanding researcher. The director also questioned whether the petitioner had demonstrated that, as a 
corporation, it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's conclusions and the petitioner, through counsel, submits additional 
documentation. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area. and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(m) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) provides the following requirements where the job offer is from a 
private employer: 
Page 3 
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. 
The director concluded that while the petitioner and the limited liability company where the beneficiary was 
worlung were both subsidiaries of the same company and that the limited liability company had achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field, the petitioner had not demonstrated its own 
accomplishments. On appeal, the petitioner provides evidence that the limited liability company is a subsidiary 
of the petitioner. As the beneficiary is working for the petitioner at a subsidiary with documented 
accomplishments in an academic field, the petitioner has overcome the director's concerns on this issue. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 worlung 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 withn the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
and/or research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from former or current employer(s) 
and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on October 16, 2003 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field 
of chemistry. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of research 
experience in the field of chemistry as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally within the field of chemistry as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 petitioner must satisfy 
at least two. As conceded by counsel on appeal, the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 
international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent 
indicative of international recognition. The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following criteria.' 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
ucademic 3eld. Such material slzall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
The petitioner submitted 16 articles that cite the beneficiary's work. In the director's request for additional 
evidence, he noted that citations cannot serve to meet this critaion. In response, counsel asserts that the 
citations do not merely "cite" the beneficiary's work, they rely upon it. In his final decision, the director 
reiterated his conclusion that citations cannot serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
I 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. 
research community's response to the beneficiary's work is important in determining the beneficiary's level of 
recognition in the field. Counsel continues to assert that the citations go beyond merely "citing" the 
beneficiary's work. 
Counsel is not persuasive. While we concur that frequent citation is persuasive evidence of the significance of 
the cited articles, this office consistently finds that citations cannot be considered published materials about the 
author of the cited article. We do not find that the citations in the record are more significant than typical 
citations. The beneficiary is one of several authors cited for a single proposition in some articles and others cite 
the beneficiary as one of nearly two hundred citations for the whole article. These articles are primarily about 
the author's own work, not the beneficiary. As such, they cannot be considered published material about the 
beneficiary. Thus, we concur that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. We 
will, however, consider the beneficiary's citation record as a whole below as it relates to other, more relevant, 
criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. 
Counsel asserted for the first time that the beneficiary meets this criterion in response to the director's request 
for additional evidence. In support of this assertion, counsel references the witness letters provided at that time. 
These letters consist of one from the beneficiary's coauthor, and eight others. Counsel also 
asserts that the beneficiary is listed as the inventor on two patent applications. In support of this final assertion, 
the petitioner submits an April 13, 2004 letter from the petitioner's patent counsel confirming the beneficiary's 
status as a named inventor. 
The director noted that the eight reference letters as well as the letter fro-all included significant 
amounts of boilerplate language. The director questioned the evidentiary value of such letters. The director 
further questioned whether the beneficiary was an author of a patent application filed prior to the filing of the 
instant petition and concluded that merely being a named inventor on an unapproved patent application was not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "each author was provided with a copy of the US regulations so that the author 
could write a letter expressly conveying their true understanding of 'Outstanding research' and its application" 
to the beneficiary. Counsel concludes that each reference "is sincere and should not be disregarded merely 
because the letters track the very regulations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which are provided for 
guidance." Counsel is not persuasive. The reference letters do not merely "track the very regulations" at issue. 
Rather, all eight include the following three paragraphs verbatim: 
I am familiar with [the beneficiary] by virtue of his outstanding and extraordinary research on 
organometallic synthesis and homogeneous catalysis. Moreover, [the beneficiary] has co- 
authored over sixteen (16) articles, which have been published in scholarly journals with 
international circulation. His research contributions in organometallic synthesis and 
homogeneous catalysis are internationally considered of major significance in the field of 
Chemistry. 
I hereby certifL that [the beneficiary] has reached that level of achievement, which in my 
oplnion, demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage that has risen to the very top of his 
Page 5 
field of endeavor. Specifically, [the beneficiary] is at the top of his profession as an 
Outstanding and Extraordinary Researcher in the field of Chemistry. [The beneficiary] has 
sustained national and international acclaim, and his achievements are recognized in the field of 
Chemistry. It is my opinion that [the beneficiary] possesses outstanding and extraordinary 
ability in this field. 
I wish to reiterate that [the beneficiary] qualifies as an Outstanding Researcher pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. 204.5(i) of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations. I wholeheartedly 
and enthusiastically support the petition on behalf of [the beneficiary]. 
The only divergence from the above language appears in D letter, which includes quotes 
around "Outstanding and Extraordinary Researcher" in paragraph two and replaces "wholeheartedly and 
enthusiastically" in the final sentence with "unreservedly." None of the eight letters include any additional 
information about the beneficiary, such as how the reference became aware of the beneficiary's work, a detailed 
explanation of the beneficiary's work and its significance or the beneficiary's influence on the author's own 
work. It is simply not credible to conclude that these identical paragraphs, word for word, are the result of these 
references merely being advised of the regulatory criteria. 
We do not question the "motives" of the authors, as the director does. Rather, we simply note that while the 
signatures of the references suggest that they endorse the information in the letters, they did not compose it. 
Thus, we concur with the director that these letters have reduced evidentiary value. Moreover, we also concur 
with the director that the content of the letters themselves does not support a finding that the beneficiary has 
international recognition for orignal contributions to the field. Letters from independent researchers2 in the 
field that attest to the significance of the alien's work and its impact on the author are far more persuasive than 
general attestations of international recognition with little basis provided for that conclusion other than the 
beneficiary's published articles. 
Even the letter from vks sufficient information to reach any conclusion about the significance of the 
beneficiary's work. In addition to including the final two boilerplate paragraphs quoted above, Drmsimply 
identifies the focus of the beneficiary's work, acknowledges that he coauthored the beneficiary's articles, and 
lists the articles. Such information does not explain the significance of the beneficiary's work or how it has 
impacted the field of chemistry or plastics. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "orignal" 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 
2 
We do not challenge the answer provided at the AILA conference documented on appeal regarding letters 
from independent sources. We concur that such letters are not required. That said, where other evidence of 
international recognition, such as major awards, exclusive memberships or journalistic coverage of the alien 
and his work, are not available, such letters can bolster the value of letters from colleagues, which cannot, by 
themselves, establish an alien's claim of international recognition. 
Page 6 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
Further, the beneficiary's citation history is not persuasive. The most citations received for any one articles is 
seven, with no other article receiving more than two. Such a citation history is not indicative of international 
recognition. 
Finally, counsel is not persuasive that the intellectual property protection provided by patents elevates all 
patented innovations to significant contributions in a field. Patents are issued to the inventors of origrnal 
processes or devices that are useful. No evaluation as to the significance of the invention is made. It is a 
property right, not a recognition of the significance of the innovation. We note that this office has previously 
stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over 
the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm. 
1998). If a patent is not sufficient to establish eligbility for a lesser classification, the national interest waiver 
for aliens with exceptional ability or advanced degree professionals, it is certainly not evidence of international 
recognition. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. The record does not establish that the 
beneficiary's work represented a groundbreaking advance in chemistry. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly boob or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academicfield. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored 16 published articles and presented his work 
at conferences. While the director noted the lack of evidence that the journals publishing the beneficiary's work 
are circulated internationally, the petitioner has overcome that concern on appeal. 
We will not infer the significance of a specific article, however, from the journal in which it appears. The 
Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. 
Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 
expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." 
Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers 
who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or research career." This report reinforces our position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of international recognition; we must consider the 
research community's reaction to those articles. 
As stated above, we do not find that the beneficiary's citation record is consistent with international recognition. 
Even if we were to conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion, the only criterion for which the beneficiary 
has submitted meaningful evidence, it is only one criterion. A beneficiary must meet two in order to be eligble 
for the classification sought. For the reasons discussed above, the beneficiary falls far short of meeting any 
other criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the respect of 
his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international exposure for his work. 
The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international reputation as an outstanding 
researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.