dismissed EB-1B Case: Chemistry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
dnd Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 198 53439 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 4uG : : 90~s 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
'4 
%~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 198 53439 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a college. It seeks to classifL the beneficiary as an outstanding professor 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 chemistry professor. 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. On appeal, the petitioner submits 
additional evidence. 
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 -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(LI) 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. fj 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 within the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
EAC 04 198 53439 
Page 3 
andlor 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 June 23, 2004 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding professor in the field of 
chemishy. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of teaching 
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. 4 204.5(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. It is important to note here that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international 
recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of 
international recognition. The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following criteria.' 
Docunzentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the American Association for Cancer 
Research (MCR) and the American Society for Investigative Pathology (ASIP). The petitioner failed to submit 
evidence of the membership requirements for these associations. Thus, the director concluded that the petitioner 
had not established that these memberships can serve to meet this criterion. 
the petitioner submits letters from the above associations discussing the membership 
of AACR asserts that AACR is a professional organization with over 22,000 members. 
es that active membership in AACR is "open to investigators worldwide who have 
of research resulting in peer-reviewed publications relevant to cancer and cancer-related biomedical science, or 
who have made substantial contributions to cancer research in an administrative 
Candidates must be nominated by two members who attest "to the candidate's achievements." 
ASIP indicates that regular membership in ASP requires that the candidate have 
supported the conduct of meritorious orignal research in pathology or a related discipline, support the mission 
of the Society, and hold a doctorate degree or have equivalent experience." 
This office consistently finds that a specific number of years of experience or level of education, having 
published one's work or securing the nomination of two of the tens of thousands of members of an association 
are not outstanding achievements. Thus, the petitioner has not overcome the director's concerns. The record 
does not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientEfic or scholarly research contributions to the academicfield. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted two letters fiom the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues and three 
published articles by the beneficiary. The director found this evidence insufficient to meet this criterion, noting 
1 
The petitioner does not claim or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
EAC 04 198 53439 
Page 4 
that the letters were from the beneficiary's supervisor and mentor and the lack of evidence that the beneficiary's 
articles had been cited. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits two letters from experts who have not worked or collaborated with the 
beneficiary and evidence that his work has been cited. All of the evidence relating to this criterion will be 
considered below. First, however, it is instructive to review the appropriate standard by which we will consider 
the evidence. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "origmal" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
~esearch'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 orignal research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
airman of the Division of Natural Sciences and Veterinary Technology at the petitioning 
college, praises the beneficiary's contributions to the petitioner through the creation of a new chemistry course 
and his collateral duties with the Institutional Review Board Committee. This work, while important to the 
petitioner, does not a ear to be an orignal contribution to the beneficiary's academic field of chemistry as a 
whole. While lentions the beneficiary's research and published articles, he does not explain how 
the beneficiary's published work has impacted the field. 
an assistant the beneficiary's graduate work 
in the laboratory o beneficiary "researched the 
chemopreventive capability otes that this research resulted in 
published articles, she the beneficiary has 
been collaborating wit for gene therapy in 
bone marrow the importance of 
does not appear to 
have produced any results as of the date of filing, can already be considered a contribution to the field. 
Ioannides, a professor at the University of Surrey who has cited the beneficiary's work, 
provided the first direct evidence" that the 
chemopreventive action of tea is "operative. former Head of the Department of Experimental 
Pathology at the Institute of that one of the beneficiary's articles "was an 
important paper which threw light on the mechanism whereby the consumption of green tea exhibits important 
cancer-preventing activity." The review article that cites the beneficiary reveals that researchers have been 
investigating the antioxidant effects of tea since at least the mid-1990's. Both of the beneficiary's independent 
references attest to the beneficiary's international recognition for his work with green tea, but fail to provide 
examples of how the beneficiary's work has impacted the field, such as by providing examples of other 
laboratories applying his work or demonstrating the incorporation of his results into government issued 
nutritional guidelines. 
EAC 04 198 53439 
Page 5 
On appeal, the petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary's three published articles have been cited. 
As the petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's eligbility as of the date of filing: we will only consider 
the citations in articles published prior to the date of filing. In addition, citations by coauthors, while a normal 
and expected process, are not indicative of international recognition. The citation evidence reflects that, as of 
the date of filing, two of the beneficiary's articles had been cited four times by independent researchers and the 
third article had been cited six times by independent researchers. Due to the citation of more than one of the 
beneficiary's articles in some of the citing articles, the beneficiary had been cited in only 11 different articles by 
independent researchers as of the date of filing. Eleven citations by independent researchers, with no more than 
six citations for any one article, are not indicative of contributions that have had a significant impact 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 research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and 
useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who obtains a Ph.D. or 
publishes his work has made an original contribution indicative of or uniquely consistent with international 
recognition. The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work represented a groundbreaking advance 
in chemistry. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic$eld. 
Counsel does not specifically challenge the director's conclusion that the beneficiary does not meet this 
criterion. Nevertheless, we will discuss the evidence relating to it. The petitioner submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary has authored three published articles. The Association of American Universities' Committee on 
Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 31, 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 andlor 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 andlor 
research career." 
The above 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. We do not find 
that the beneficiary's citation history is indicative of international recognition. Thus, we concur with the 
director that the beneficiary does not meet this 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 intemational reputation as an outstanding 
researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
' See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak; 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 197 1). 
EAC 04 198 53439 
Page 6 
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.