dismissed EB-1B Case: Clinical Research

(b)(6)
DATE : MAR 1 9 2014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Departmen t of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cit izenship and Immi gration Services 
Admin istrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Profe ssor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Secti on 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigrati on and Nationality Act , 8 U.S .C. § l153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-prec ede nt decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-preced ent decisio ns. If you believe the AAO incorre ctly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for con sideration, you may file a motion to recon sider 
or a motion to reopen, respec tively. Any motion must be filed on a Notic e of Appeal or Moti on (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/ /www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location , and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rose n 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a department, division, or institute of a nonprofit employer.
1 
It seeks to classify the beneficiary 
as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
Clinical Research Associate . The director determined that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
has attained the level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal , the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the evidence on the record in its totality and 
that the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence for a favorable decision. The petitioner submits a brief in 
support of the appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner 
has failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
Specifically, when the AAO simply "counts" the evidence submitted , the petitioner has submitted qualifying 
evidence under two of the regulatory criteria as required, judging the work of others and scholarly articles 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R. §§ 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As will be explained in the final merits determination, 
however, much of the evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria reflects routine duties or 
accomplishments in the field that do not, as of the date of filing the petition , set the beneficiary apart in the 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the 
regulatory criteria. 2 Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703 , 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
I. TheLaw 
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 
1 The petitioner is affiliated with the L________ -, _ . 
2 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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, 
(II) 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. § 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
academic field specified in the petition. Such evidence shall consist of at least two of the following: 
(A) Documentation ofthe alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations m the academic field which 
require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien 's work in 
the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under a similar 
classification set forth at section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the 
significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "final merits determination. " Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 3 Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry , the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
count the types of evidence provided," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper 
conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence." !d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination " as the 
corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determine s whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor, " 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) , 
and "that the a! ien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only 
aliens whose achievements have garnered "s ustained national or international acclaim" are 
eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the 
context of a final merits determination.
4 
While involving a different classification than the one at issue in this 
matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's reasoning persuasive to the classification 
sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian . 
II. Discussion 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary 's work has been 
recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
3 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(D)) and 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
4 
The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under 
three criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act, requires 
qualifying evidence under only two criteria. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The petitioner has asserted that the beneficiary qualifies under all six criteria. The director determined that the 
petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under two of the criteria, 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner has established that the evidence 
qualifies under the plain language of the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of major priz es or awards for outstanding achievement in the 
academic field 
The director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), advising the petitioner that the submitted evidence, 
including the beneficiary's receipt of a federal grant, his 
was insufficient to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility for the criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
In response to the NOID, the petitioner acknowledged the director's finding and stated: "We have no further 
evidence on this point." The petitioner has abandoned its claim of eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
As evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary is a member of various associations , including the : 
· . The petitioner 
also submitted evidence that the beneficiary serves on the review board for 
, and is an associate editor for In the denial, the director 
concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the associations of which the beneficiary is a member 
require outstanding achievements of their members. With respect to the beneficiary 's service as a reviewer and 
associate editor for journals, the director concluded that "these are positions/appointments and not memberships 
in associations in the academic field which require outstanding achievements of their members. " 
On appeal, the petitioner contests the director 's conclusion that being on the review board and being an 
associate editor of academic journals are not "memberships in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members ." The petitioner asserts that the director's conclusion is "without 
authority or justification," but does provide any further explanation. The petitioner submits no additional 
evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
ccord_illgly the petitioner has abandoned its claim that the beneficiary 's memberships in the 
Epidemiologic Research and other associations meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). See Sepulveda 
v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). The only issue the petitioner raises on appeal is whether the 
beneficiary's inclusion on the review board and board of associate editors of various journals constitutes 
"memberships in associations in the academic field which require outstanding achievements of their members." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Upon review, the AAO finds that beneficiary's membership on the review board and the board of associate 
editors for academic journals qualifies as "memberships in associations" under the plain meaning of that term. 
The AAO will withdraw the director's finding that "these are positions/appointments and not memb ers hips." 
Nevertheless , the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary ' s member ship on the 
boards of 1 requires outstanding 
achievements of its members . The petiti one r provided a copy of the beneficiary's invitation to become a 
founding member of the board of associate editors of 1 which states in 
pertinent part: "Because you have been an exemplary reviewer for the . , 
and because of your work as a resea rcher in the area of health behavior or health policy, I would like to invite 
you to become a_ ~ ~-· ...... 0 __ - · - ~ . " This letter states only that the 
beneficiary was invited to be a founding member of the board of associate editors o~ 
based upon his service as a reviewer for and because he is 
"a researcher in the area of health behavior or health policy ." This letter falls short of establishing that the 
beneficiary was invited for membership on the board of associate editors based upon his outstanding 
achievements. Furthermore, this letter fails to provid e any information as to the membership requirements for 
reviewe rs for L- The petitioner provided no other evidence relating to the 
beneficiary's membership in the above boards. 
Based on the above, the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien 's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
As evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), the petitioner submitted several articles that cite 
the beneficiary 's work as one of numerous footnoted reference s. 
However , articles which merely cite the beneficiary's work as one of numerous footnoted references are 
primarily "about" the author's own work, and are not primarily "about" the beneficiary's work. As such, they 
cannot be considered published material "abo ut" the beneficiary's work. The petitioner's evidence fails to 
establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
Evidence of the alien's parti cipation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has participated as a peer reviewer and associate editor 
for the work of others submitted for publication. The AAO concurs with the director that this evidence 
qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic jLeld. 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner submitted reference letters, copies of the beneficiary's scholarly 
articles, and copies of articles that cited the beneficiary's work. In the denial, the director determined that the 
reference letters , alone, were insufficient to establish the beneficiary 's eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). The director also determined that the number of citations to the beneficiary's publications in 
Google Scholar " is not indicative of a demonstrable influence on the field as a whole." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the number of citations in "is not always a fair measure of 
the contributions in a field." For example, the petitioner points out that the beneficiary's work in the impact of 
coping styles among pregnant women exposed to Hurricane Katrina, which was included in the Nation al 
Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) citation library and the , would not be includ ed 
in l · ~ · · The petitioner also claims that the director failed to consider the fact that the beneficiary's 
publications have been cited in six articles authored by independent researchers in different parts of the world, 
published in scientific journals with international circulation and strong impact factors. Furth ermore, the 
petiti oner claims that the director failed to consider the reference letter s in their entirety. 
Upon review of the record, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner failed to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
With regard to the beneficiary's scholarly articles, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly 
articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
presumed that the regulation treats contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. 
In discussing the citations to the beneficiary's work, the petitioner claims that simply counting the number of 
citations found in · "is not a valid means of evaluating academic research. " While the AAO 
acknowledges that the number of citations is not the sole means of evaluating academic research, it may, 
howev er, serve as an objective, reliable indicator of whether the beneficiary 's original research constitutes 
"contributions" to the field, particularly in the absence of other reliable evidence under this criterion. The plai n 
language of the regulation does not simply require original research, but original "re search contributions." Had 
the regulation contemplated merely the submission of original research , it would have said so, and not have 
included the extra word "contributions. " Thus, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary 's research has 
contributed to the field, beyond adding onto the gen era l pool of knowledge and understanding that is expected 
from original research work. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's citation record is consistent with a contribution to the 
field as a whole. The petitioner points out that s ix other researcher s have cited the beneficiary 's work . 
However, the petitioner fails to explain how the fact that the beneficiary's work has been cited by six 
independent researchers establishes that the beneficiary has made a contribution to the academic field as a 
whole . 
(b)(6)
-------------------- - --- --· -- -------·--··--
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner asserts that ~ o r would not include all citations to the beneficiary's research on the 
impact of coping styles among pregnant women exposed to Hurricane Katrina, which was included in the 
National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) citation library and the publication. The 
petitioner explains that the NEMA citation library " is meant to 'facilitate and support student and faculty 
research and supplement classroom lectures and course materials ' http://www.lrc.fema.gov/about .html." The 
petitioner further explains that [ ____ j =-- ~- is "a weekly publication of the World Health Organization in 
collaboration with =-·· _ :_b~ T_· .. ~ . ___ :"'7 > ~ r . " · ~ '-'. • • '-·- ~ " However, the petitioner's 
assertions are unpersuasive and unsupported by objective evidence. 5 The petitioner failed to explain and 
document whether the beneficiary's work is actually being used in the field based upon its inclusion in NEMA's 
citation library and the The mere inclusion of the beneficiary's work as a potential 
reference source does not establish that the beneficiary's work has actually been used in the field. 6 
The petitioner submitted reference letters attesting to the beneficiary's research contributions. The AAO will 
address these letters in depth. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
asserts that the beneficiary has made "outstanding contributions to the field of medicine through his 
remarkable medical research," particularly in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) research. 
discusses how the beneficiary has made two "major findings" from analyzing the 1 0-year national health records 
of 240,000 veterans with hepatitis C. The first finding was that "achieving sustained virologic response among 
patients treated for chronic hepatitis C will reduce incidence of diabetes, which in turn means a reduction in 
progression to terminal liver problems." ~- - --·------' states: "As a result of its novelty, this finding made it to 
the learning portal of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases . .. [and] was also published in 
Hepatology, the most prestigious journal of liver diseases in the world with impact factor of 1 I .665." The 
second finding was that "adjunctive use of statins (a class of drugs that help reduce cholesterol production in 
human liver) as prescribed medication with hepatitis C antiviral therapy improves sustained virologic response 
among veteran patients." states that this finding "positively shifts the paradigm in the care of 
individuals with chronic hepatitis C to save resources in form of money and time expended on the current 48-
5 The AAO observes that http:ljwww.lrc.fema.gov/about.html is not a working website. 
6 Not ably, the~ , [t .website states, in pertinent part: 
The purpose of is to provide its users with information to allow them to identify 
and find material (of both good and poor quality) that has been published about injury 
prevention and safety promotion topics. Even when ~ staff believe that there are 
methodological errors that affect the research findings or when we disagree with the authors' 
conclusions and statements of implications, an attempt is made to provide an objective 
summary of the authors' intent. Material in the 'comments' section of each report's summary 
is provided by the author(s) of the report -- not by , 
_(last visited March 10, 2014). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
week regimen. This is currently being utilized, and the benefits being observed among patients treated for 
chronic hepatitis C here at the further states that the second 
finding is "extremely significant, because it will improve our country's healthcare and save the nation's 
financial resources. Other nations will also benefit from this research, because liver diseases are an international 
threat . . . The results of his findings bear tremendous scientific value, because they ultimately help the 
humanity [sic]." 
While the letter from indicates that the beneficiary has made two scientific findings, the letter does 
not explain with specificity how these findings have made contributions to the academic field as a whole. With 
respect to the first finding, _ .. ---· ----·-----' indicates that it "made . it to the learning portal of the American 
Association for the Study of Liver Diseases ... [and] was also published in Hepatology" based on its "novelty. " 
The fact that a finding is novel and has been included as a potential reference source in a learning portal, alone, 
does not establish that the finding constitutes a contribution to the field . With respect to the second finding, Dr. 
indicates that it is currently being utilized in the ---· ·- --- with observable 
benefits. However, the letter does not explain whether the beneficiary's research is being utilized beyond the 
The plain language of the regulation requires that the contributions be "to the 
academic field " rather than an individual institution or research center. This letter falls short of establishing that 
the beneficiary's research findings is being utilized beyond the _______ .. ·to an extent that 
it can be said to have contributed to the field as a whole. Vague and general assertions that the beneficiary's 
research findings will "improve our country's healthcare" and "ultimately help the humanity" are insufficient to 
explain and establish how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
previously collaborated with the beneficiary on a 2004 study conducted 
among pregnant women in Nigeria to determine factors associated with reproductive health outcomes. In this 
letter, indicates that the beneficiary has made "significant contributions to scientific and scholarly 
field [sic]" through their joint 2004 study. Specifically, asserts that the beneficiary's work has 
contributed to the field because it was published in two peer-reviewed journals and presented at the 3'ct North 
American Congress of Epidemiologists. - further asserts that "the Millennium Development Goals, 
and the U.S. HealthyPeople 2020 goals focus on improving the health and well-being of women, infants, 
children and families. The realization of this goal, requires researchers such as [the beneficiary], whose passion 
is so directed ." 
letter does not explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
academic field as a whole. The fact that the beneficiary ' s research has been published, alone , does not establish 
that it constitutes a contribution to the field. ------~ ' · vague and general assertion that the beneficiary is 
helping to realize larger goals focusing on improving the health and well-being of women, infants, children and 
families is insufficient to explain and establish how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the field. 
beneficiary's master's thesis . ~ gives a brief introduction to 
was the Chair of the committee for the 
:strong tradition of training public 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
health leaders, and his own research studies of depression and rates among women with high hurricane 
exposure compared to women without high hurricane exposure . then states that he finds "[the 
beneficiary's) contribution to our work of immense benefit and national relevance." In particular, -
explains the beneficiary's master's thesis research, for which the beneficiary identified and proposed a model of 
coping styles that could potentially impact the development of depression and PTSD among pregnant women 
exposed to stress due to hurricane Katrina . ~- .. -· - ··e. explains that, "[a]s a result of the significance of these 
findings, our leading epidemiologist, requested [the 
beneficiary] to attend one of our meetings so we could discuss his work ." Furthermore, states that the 
beneficiary's study "provides useful information for psychiatrists, psychologists, other medical and behavioral 
science professionals [which] will definitely improve the health care of United States [sic]." ; states his 
belief that "the economic burden on the nation will be lower via adoption of these coping styles by those 
exposed to hurricanes and other natural disasters." Finally, _ expresses his excitement for the 
beneficiary's broader goal of using similar epidemiological study designs and expertise to help veterans 
suffering from depression and PTSD. 
letter does not explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
field as a whole. _ indicates that he has found the beneficiary ' s research to be of "immense benefit " to 
his own research, but as discussed above, the plain language of the regulation requires that the contributions be 
"to the academic field" rather than an individual institution or research center. Furthermore , letter 
indicates that the beneficiary's research has "national relevance " and "provides useful information for 
psychiatrists, psychologists, other medical and behavioral science professionals [sic]." However, 
letter does not explain with any specificity how medical professionals are currently utilizing the beneficiary 's 
research. Vague and general assertions that the beneficiary's research provides "useful information, " will 
"improve the healthcare of United States [sic)," or will "help" veterans, arc insufficient to explain and establish 
exactly how the beneficiary 's research has contributed to the field as a whole. 
Finally, the petitioner provided a letter from ______ J 
-··-. ---- · j· ~-~~--- describes her involvement 
with the beneficiary in three contexts: when she interviewed him and he discussed his prior master's thesis 
research performed in Nigeria; when he worked as a research coordinator for the from 
November 2008 to July 2009; and when she collaborated with the beneficiary on a manuscript examining coping 
styles and their relationship with mental health after disaster in pregnant women. positively 
describes the beneficiary's work and performance with respect to the three research projects mentioned above, 
but does not explain how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the field as a whole .. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving. " See , e.g. , Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec . 1328 , 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). 
The Board also held, however: " We not only encourage , but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, 
or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence . Matter of Y-B-, 21 
I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 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. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may , as we have done 
above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact "). 
The letters considered above primarily contain vague and general claims of contributions, without 
specifically identifying the beneficiary's contributions and providing specific examples of how those 
contributions have influenced the field. Mere) y repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proor.? Considering the letters and the paucity of other evidence under this 
criterion, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary 's research, while original, can be 
considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles and a scholarly book in 
the academic field. Thus, the petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under the plain language of 8 
C.F.R . § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets two of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification . Specifically the petitioner submitted 
evidence to meet the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). The next step is a final merits 
determination that considers whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory standard in this matter, 
international recognition as outstanding. Section 203(b )(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
It is important to note at the outset 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 profe ssors and researchers should stand apart in the 
7 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D .N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d . Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 
60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition as outstanding. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On 
appeal, the petitioner contests the director's conclusion that the beneficiary's active participation as a 
reviewer is "expected of a professional in his academic field and alone do not recognize the alien 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field ." The petitioner asserts: "However , this is far from being 
the truth. Researchers are not judges or reviewers ... Being a judge or reviewer is an additional honor, 
awarded to the researchers who are recognized in their academic fields for their achievements." 
While it may be generally true that researchers are not judges or reviewers, the AAO cannot overlook the fact 
that most scientific and scholarly journals are peer reviewed and rely on many individuals to review submitted 
articles. In fact, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is one among 351 reviewers for 
A 
This large number of reviewers is not 
consistent with a finding that serving as a reviewer is indicative of international recognition as outstanding. 
Rather, this large number supports the conclusion that peer review is somewhat routine in the field, and not 
every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite 
group of referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an 
editorial position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner cannot establish that the beneficiary's judging 
experience is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. Here, the AAO again observes that 
the beneficiary was invited to be an associate editor for based on his 
participation as a reviewer for a sister journal and his "work as a researcher in the area of health behavior or 
health policy. " The petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary was invited to be an associate 
editor because he has been recognized internationally as outstanding in the field . 
On appeal, the petitioner also contests the director 's conclusion that the beneficiary's publication record does 
not reflect "a high degree of production in the field. " The petitioner asserts that "[w)hile researchers are 
expected to publish their scientific findings, not all of them are capable or honored to publish scholarly books 
or articles in scholarly journals with international reputation ." However , the petitioner's assertions are 
unpersuasive. As the petitioner essentially concedes, researchers are "expected to publish their scientific 
findi~gs." Thus, the fact that some researchers may fail to meet their employers' expectations or 
requirements to publish does not establish that all researchers who publish are internationally recognized as 
outstanding. 
The AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's publication record of less than ten total articles and books is 
indicative of international recognition as outstanding in the field. Comparatively, the individuals who wrote 
reference letters on behalf of the beneficiary are, themselves, demonstrably more accomplished than the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
beneficiary in terms of their numb er of publications. For example , has authored or co-authored 
approximately 79 refereed papers and 10 books or book chapters; has authored or co-authored 
approximately 55 refereed papers and made presentations at approximately 88 scientific/professional 
meetings. Thus, it cannot credibly be argued that the beneficiary's publication record is indicative of 
international recognition as outstanding. The AAO observes that the beneficiary's job duties specifically 
include: "Writing research papers and preparation of manuscripts for publication " and "Co mmunicate 
research findings in peer-reviewed literature, scientific meetings and conferences , and educational 
institutions. " 
The beneficiary's citation history is another relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of 
the beneficiary's international recognition. See Id. On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes that six independent 
articles by researchers in different parts of the world have cited the beneficiary's work, and that these articles 
were published in scientific journals with international circulation and strong impact factor. The AAO cannot 
conclude that six total citations are indicative of international recognition as outstanding. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not established that the nature of the citations to the beneficiary's work is substantial. A review of 
the citing articles reflects that the beneficiary's work is briefly cited as one among nume-rous other research 
findings or studies in the related topic; none of these a11icles substantively discuss or rely on the beneficiary's 
work. Overall, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary's articles have been cited at a level and 
manner consistent with international recognition as outstanding in the field. 
In light of the above , our final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying evidence, 
participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not garnered significant 
citations or other response in the academic field, does not set the beneficiary apart in the academic community 
through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 
56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. The independent references do not indicate that they learned of the beneficiary's 
work through his international reputation. Indeed, the record Jacks evidence that a significant number of 
members of the academic field outside of the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues are even aware of 
his work. The record contains only letters from the beneficiary 's current or prior employers , mentors, or 
collaborators. 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a promising researcher who has won the respect of his 
employers, mentors , and collabora tors. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level 
of an alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition 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; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not bee n met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.