dismissed EB-1B Case: Computer Information Systems

identify; _1 
n!l qata rfeleted t preven" 1 0 lC t, ... . ·'W inv' ..... -''; '.-Hi arramed aslOn of personaJ . przvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DateMAY 0 1 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1l53(b)(1)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 an institution of higher education/university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as 
an outstanding professor or 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 an assistant professor of computer information 
systems/marketing in the petitioner's college of business administration.l 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 professor or researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. The petitioner has not submitted any further evidence on 
appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the record fails to 
establish that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition as outstanding in the academic field. 
Specifically, when we simply "count" 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.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As 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, 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. Law 
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, 
I The AAO notes this petition describes the beneficiary's job as an assistant professor of computer information 
systems. The petitioner has also submitted a confirmation of employment letter, describing the beneficiary's job as 
an assistant professor of marketing. 
2 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
(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, 
(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. 
II. International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[e]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists 
the following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least 
two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in 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. 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (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). 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? 
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 (which the AAO did)," 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 (as the AAO concluded)." Id. 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 determines 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 alien 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 
"sustained 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. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 c.F.R. 
103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
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)(l)(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. 
Page 5 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on August 12, 2010, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a professor or 
researcher who is recognized internationally as outstanding in her academic field. The petitioner 
has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was selected to participate in the Advertising 
Educational Foundation Visiting Professor Program (AEF-VPP)(201O). 
The beneficiary's CV also lists, as an award, her having been a collaborator at the petitioning 
agency on a grant from the National Collegiate Inventor and Innovators Alliance (NCIAA). The 
beneficiary's work on this grant is also mentioned in a reference letter 
associate dean of the petitioning agency. 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required 
evidence of a major international award. 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. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for a separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Regarding the beneficiary's selection to participate in the AEF-VPP (2010), the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner states that this award is a two-week fellowship open to professors of 
advertising, marketing, communications and the liberal arts. The documentation further states that 
the criteria for selection are: "a strong statement expressing reason for and benefit of VPP 
experience for professor and students"; "little or no professional advertising experience"; "represent 
institutions of diverse size and location"; "research background/area of study of interestlbenefit to 
potential host company"; and, "relevancy of lunchtime lecture topic". From a review of the 
selecting criteria, there is no evidence that the beneficiary's inclusion was based upon outstanding 
achievement in an academic field, indicative of international recognition in the field. We therefore 
find that this award does not constitute a major award. 
Page 6 
Regarding the beneficiary having collaborated on a research grant, research grants simply fund the 
work of a scientist or professor. Every successful scientist or professor 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 perfonning the proposed research. The 
beneficiary acknowledges that she was not the principal investigator, but even had she been, 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 submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 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 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the following organizations: 
American Marketing Association (AMA); American Academy of Advertising (AAA); Advertising 
Research Foundation (ARP); Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE); Project Management Institute 
(PMI); and, Society for Advancement of Management (SAM). 
The petitioner did not submit evidence that any of the above associations require anything other 
than the beneficiary having attained certain educational requirements, such as a degree, or the 
payment of dues for membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
a member of associations which require outstanding achievements of their members. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth 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 
The petitioner submitted three research papers, from researchers in Canada, China and Texas, 
respectively, containing citations to the beneficiary's work.5 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of published material about the 
beneficiary's work. A review reveals that the published material which cites the beneficiary'S work 
is primarily about the author's own work, or recent work in the field generally, and not about the 
5 The petitioner also submitted, as evidence under this category, a published list containing the beneficiary'S name 
as a peer reviewer for the IEEE Security and Privacy Journal (2006). This evidence will not be considered here, 
since it is not relevant to this category. We will consider this evidence of the beneficiary's judging experience under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Page 7 
beneficiary's work. As such, it cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary's 
work. However, the beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. 
See Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in our final merits 
determination. 
The petitioner also submitted a publisher's review of the beneficiary's book. The plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires that the published material shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material. However, this book review does not include this information. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
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 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed manuscripts for the 
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, International Journal of Web­
Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), and IEEE Security and Privacy Journal. 
Regarding the International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, the petitioner has 
submitted documentation stating that the beneficiary is a member of the editorial review board, 
has published a paper in the journal, and was forwarded a manuscript for review. However, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary completed her review of the 
manuscript. 
Regarding the IEEE Security and Privacy Journal, as stated above, the petitioner submitted a 
published list containing the beneficiary's name as a volunteer peer reviewer for that journal in 
2006. In addition, regarding the IJWLTT, the petitioner has submitted a letter from the co-editor­
in-chief, Dr. Mahesh (AKA Michael) S. Raisinghani, stating that the beneficiary has reviewed 
manuscripts as a member of the editorial review board of that journal since 2008.6 
This evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the 
nature of these duties may be and will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
6 The AAO notes that the petitioner has also submitted a reference letter discussed more fully 
below, in which he does not mention the beneficiary's editorial duties does list a paper 
published in that journal which he co-authored with the beneficiary. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary attended two conferences, one as a session chair, but no evidence that the beneficiary participated in any 
judging duties as part of the conferences. 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner has submitted six reference letters, all from the beneficiary's 
immediate circle of coauthors and collaborators. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary's contributions themselves be internationally 
recognized as outstanding. That being said, the plain language of the regulation does not simply 
require original research, but an original "research contribution." Had the regulation contemplated 
merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have included the extra 
word "contribution." Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires that the contribution 
be "to the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory or institution. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored several journal articles in the academic field, 
co-authored a book and a book chapter, and has presented her work at conferences, as is mentioned 
in several of the reference letters. If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from 
scholarly articles. In addition, even if we considered the original nature of the beneficiary's 
research to qualify it under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), and we do not, whether 
or not the contributions are indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition in the field is 
a valid consideration under our final merits determination. (We will consider the articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
dean of the college of business administration at the petitioner's institution, 
states that the beneficiary will be recognized as an outstanding professor after review of her 
accomplishments and qualifications. He does not describe specific contributions made by the 
beneficiary to the field, or state how the beneficiary's work has impacted the field of computer 
information systems or marketing. 
assistant dean at the petitioner's institution, states he has co-authored two 
. . 7 He also states that he has worked on a with the beneficiary to 
~ renewable energy entrepreneurship. uses language identical to 
_ in stating that the beneficiary "clearly falls into the outstanding professor 
category and will be recognized as such after your review of her accomplishments and 
qualifications." Although he discusses how the beneficiary's work benefits the petitioning 
7 _ also describes editorial positions of two professional journals the beneficiary will hold in 2011, at the 
International Journal of Systems and Software Engineering (IJSSE) and the International Journal of Online 
Pedagogy and Course Design, respectively. Regarding the beneficiary's prospective editorship at IJSSE, this event 
will have occurred, if at all, after the date of filing this petition and cannot be considered evidence of the beneficiary's 
eligibility after that date. See 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 197\). 
Regarding the beneficiary's prospective editorship at the International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course 
Design, the petitioner has submitted evidence that this journal began judging prospective research papers in 2009. 
Therefore, we will consider the beneficiary'S judging duties at this journal, if any, under 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3 )(i)(D). 
Page 9 
institution, he does not describe specific contributions made by the beneficiary to the field, or state 
that the beneficiary's work has impacted the field. 
states that he. met the beneficiary in 2007 when she was a visiting 
professor at Thunderbird School of Global Management in Arizona. He states that he has co­
authored several papers with the beneficiary.8 
an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (lIFT) in New Delhi, 
states that he worked with the beneficiary at lIFT from 2003 to 2008. He states that the beneficiary 
was the director of a program, the "Executive Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Marketing 
(EPGDIM), for students visiting lIFT semi-annually from a company ",U""'UI_ 
He states that as director of the EPGDIM program the beneficiary developed an online learning 
course, and contributed content for the course in the areas of Marketing and Information Systems. 
He states that the online course developed by the beneficiary is still in use by the lIFT. The 
beneficiary's curriculum vitae (CV) shows that from 2005 to 2008, as an assistant professor at lIFT, 
the beneficiary also designed a course for second-year MBA students, entitled "Information 
Technology Project Management." The beneficiary's CV states that the course prepared students to 
take an examination, administered by Project Management Institute (PM1) USA, for certification as 
a Project Management Professional (PMP).9 Although the beneficiary's work in developing online 
courses has benefitted the IIFT,_does not suggest that the beneficiary's online courses are 
currently in use, or are becoming one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be 
expected of a contribution to the field as a whole, nor does he provide examples of independent 
institutions of higher education/universities using the beneficiary's work. 
the beneficiary's doctoral advisor at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade 
states that he has co-authored a textbook with the beneficiary, which was published in 
India in 2004. He states that he bases his opinion that the beneficiary is an outstanding professor on 
"her proven accomplishments in the classroom and international concept distribution through her 
numerous articles and presentations." 
a lecturer at the petitioning institution, states that has known the beneficiary for 
several years. He states that the beneficiary's "knowledge and ability to effectively communicate" 
have resulted in her having received favorable student evaluations. He states that the beneficiary's, 
"exceptional capabilities has (sic) resulted in the increased enrollment for Marketing students" at the 
petitioning institution. He states that the beneficiary "is a key researcher in the area of Advertising, 
~lly exploring the inter-relationships between Advertising and Branding." However, _ 
__ does not describe specific contributions made by the beneficiary to the academic field, or 
state that the beneficiary's work has impacted the field. 
8 The AAO notes states, inconsistently with_and the beneficiary's CV, that as of the 
date of his June 24, 2010 reference letter the beneficiary was already an associate editor of the IJSSE. 
9The beneficiary's CV also shows that in 2005, after obtaining her doctoral degree, she obtained PMP certification from 
PMIUSA. 
Page 10 
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." Id. 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). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
United States Citizenship & 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. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as the AAO has 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"). 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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and 
vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. tO 
Considering the letters in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's 
research is original or can be considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the AAO withdraws this portion of the director's decision, and finds that 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements 
set forth 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 that the beneficiary has authored several journal articles in the 
academic field and co-authored a book and a book chapter. The petitioner has also submitted 
evidence that the beneficiary has presented her work at several conferences. Thus, the petitioner has 
submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
10 Fedin Bros. Co .• Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1lO3, 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 
conc1usoryassertions. 1756, 1nc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 11 
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, however, 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 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, 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 recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. 
See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has 
reviewed manuscripts as a member of the editorial review board of the International Journal of 
Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IlWLIT), and as a volunteer peer reviewer for 
IEEE Security and Privacy Journal. In addition, as stated above the petitioner submitted 
evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the editorial review board of the International 
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, but no evidence that the beneficiary completed 
any reviews for that journal. 
The fact that the applicant is a member of the editorial board of the IlWLTT, while notable, is not 
by itself indicative of international recognition as outstanding. The AAO cannot ignore that 
scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. 
Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. 
The AAO agrees with the director that, without other evidence that sets the beneficiary apart 
from others in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
credits a small, elite group of referees, or received independent requests from a substantial 
number of journals, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's judging experience is 
indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
Regarding the beneficiary's original research, as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level 
of a contribution to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was 
"original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure 
the beneficiary a Master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. To argue that 
Page 12 
all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful 
meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
While the beneficiary has published several articles authored by the beneficiary in journals in the 
academic field, has co-authored a book and a book chapter, and has presented her work at several 
conferences, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm (accessed June 23, 2011 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding). The OOH 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. [d. 
The beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner has submitted several articles containing citations to the 
beneficiary's work. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary's articles have been widely 
cited or other comparable evidence that demonstrates that the beneficiary's publication record is 
consistent with international recognition. 
In light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying 
evidence, participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not 
garnered widespread 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 petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented professor of computer information 
systems/marketing, who has won the respect of her collaborators, employers, and mentors, while 
securing some degree of 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. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an 
outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Page 13 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.