dismissed EB-1B Case: Controls Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleaf!)' unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
Date:MAY 0 1 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department or 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. § 1153(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, 
PerryRhew 
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 a company specializing in communications equipment and technology. It seeks 
to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) 
ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(B). The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a research and development controls 
engineer. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had 
attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding 
researcher. 
On appeal, 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 ofthe 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. l 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) ofthe 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 m 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 legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
(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) fur a comparable position with a university or institution 
ofhigher 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 n[e]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition. n 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 ofthe material, and any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the 
judge ofthe work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contnbutions 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 (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
Page 4 
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 ofthe regulations.2 
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 coro lIary 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 
ofthat small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[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)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. 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. 3 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 ifthe 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)(I)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
2 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». 
3 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. 
PageS 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on March 24, 2011, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a professor or 
researcher who is recognized internationally as outstanding in his 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 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's receipt of major prizes or awards, the petitioner submitted 
the following: the petitioning company's Recognition Award for Outstanding Contnbution to Laser 
Wave FLEX Fiber Project (2009); and, a statement by the petitioner's senior manager of human 
resources that, at the time of filing this petition, the beneficiary "has a patent pending for his 
development ofthe deposition process, Radio Frequency Chemical Vapor Deposition (RF-CVD)." 
The AAO notes that the petitioner has not submitted a copy ofthe patent application. 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required 
evidence ofa 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 receipt of the petitoning company's Recognition Award for 
Outstanding Contricution to Laser Wave FLEX Fiber Project (2009), while the Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) 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)), 
it is evident that the award is limited to employees of the petitioning company, and is not indicative 
of international recognition in the field. 
Regarding the beneficiary's pending patent application 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. ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm'r. 
1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. 
The petitioner does not state whether the rights to the patent have been assigned to the petitioner, 
Page 6 
and does not indicate that it has licensed or marketed the beneficiary's patent-pending innovation, or 
state that it plans to use this patent in the future. Thus, the impact of the innovation is not 
documented in the record.4 
The director concluded that the beneficiary's award and pending patent application do not qualifY as 
major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field. Counsel does not 
challenge that conclusion on appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned that claim. See 
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir.2005)(holding, in counseled case, 
that when appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). Nevertheless, upon 
review, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner did not submit qualifYing 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion, set furth 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 director concluded that the beneficiary's membership in the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) does not qualifY as evidence of the beneficiary's membership in 
associations which require outstanding achievements in the academic field. Counsel does not 
challenge that conclusion on appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned that claim. See 
Sepulveda v. U.s. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). Nevertheless, upon review, the 
AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner did not submit qualifYing evidence 
that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion, 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 has submitted the beneficiary's citation record, containing 44 total citations to the 
beneficiary'S work. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of published 
material about the beneficiary's work. The AAO reads ''published material" to mean the published 
material itself, not a mere citation record. In addition, 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 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 his own circle of 
collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in 
our final merits determination. 
4 The AAO also notes that the beneficiary's curriculum vitae does not list the pending patent application. 
Page 7 
In light of the above, the articles and citations are not 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 several 
professional journals, including the following: Automatica; ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems 
Measurement and Control; IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks; IEEE Transactions on 
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B; lET Control Theory and Applications; Journal of 
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing; International Journal of Robotics and 
Automation; and, Robotica. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has 
reviewed manuscripts for several international conferences. This evidence qualifies under the 
plain language ofthe 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 ofthese duties may be and will be considered 
below in our final merits determination. 
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 contnbutions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted reference letters from four individuals, three 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 contnbutions themselves be 
internationally recognized as outstanding. That being said, the plain language ofthe regulation does 
not simply require original research, but an original ')-esearch contnbution." 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 ofthe 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 articles in journals in the academic 
field and has presented his work at several conferences, exhibits and workshops, as is mentioned in 
some 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)). 
written two letters of reference. He states that he met the beneficiary in 
became his colleague at the petitioning company. He states that in 2008 
the petitioning company started work on a patent-pending project called Plasma Control Vapor 
Deposition (PCVD), which he describes as being different from what others were doing in the 
Page 8 
optical fiber field. He states the beneficiary worked with a team to retrofit a machine with PCVD, 
and in the process the beneficiary "developed an algorithm that allowed a smooth speed ramp down 
and ramp up that caused minimal deformation in the glass." He states that the beneficiary learned 
and implemented unique software algorithms. He states that as a result of the beneficiary's work 
the petitioning company ''has developed a state-of-the-art one-of-a-kind" PCVD process. He states 
this process is "likely the best method to precisely, repeatedly and accurately manufacture optical 
fibers that have complex refractive index profiles ... and will lead to intellectual property for OFS" 
and a significant advantage over its competitors. 
has written two letters of reference. He states that he has worked with the 
years at the petitioning company. He states that the beneficiary's research 
contribution is having determined, through experiments and model-based work, that temperature 
has a greater effect than previously believed on the petitioner's Modified Chemical Vapor 
Deposition (MCVD) process of manufacturing optical fiber. He states that the beneficiary also "set 
about constructing novel controls algorithms" to neutralize the effect oftemperature on the MCVD 
process. He states that as a result of the beneficiary's research, the petitioning company doubled the 
output of their highest quality optical fiber, when in the previous five-years the company had only 
been able to achieve a ten percent additional output. 
While the potential applications for the beneficiary's 
research, and the way in the beneficiary's work has benefitted and will benefit the petitioning 
company, they do not suggest that the beneficiary's algorithms are currently in use in the field, or 
are becoming one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a 
contnbution to the field as a whole. 
electrical engineer, states that he has no prior working relationship 
with the beneficiary but is aware of his "excellent work in the field of controls, robotics, and vision 
systems", although he does not state how he became aware ofthe beneficiary's work. He states that 
he has reviewed "many papers published by the beneficiary", and ''they are of extremely high 
technical caliber and easily rise to the level of 'extraordinary researcher'." He states that the 
beneficiary's work ''has been instrumental in the development of the next generation of optical fiber 
technology", although he fails to identify the beneficiary's contnbutions to the field. 
a professor of electrical and computer engineering, states that he was a member 
"""Nr',<>ru'S doctoral thesis committee in 2007 at Clemson University. He states that the 
beneficiary's doctoral research group at Clemson University "has made numerous significant 
contnbutions in the last few years'" based upon "breakthrough ideas" developed by the beneficiary, 
although he fails to identify those contnbutions. The use of the beneficiary'S data by his doctoral 
research team does not demonstrate the beneficiary'S contribution to the field as a whole . ••• 
_ speculates that this data has "opened the door to a completely new approach to practical 
control of nonlinear systems", which will allow systems such as vehicles, cranes and robots to be 
controlled more effectively. Speculation as to a future contribution cannot establish that the 
beneficiary has already contributed to the academic field as a whole. 
Page 9 
As stated above, the BIA has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is 
"self-serving." See, e.g., Matter ofS-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 ofY-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 5 
Considering the letters in the aggregate, the record does not 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 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 several articles authored by the beneficiary in journals in the academic 
field. The petitioner has also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has presented his work at 
several conferences, exhibits and workshops. Thus, the petitioner has submitted evidence that 
qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
5 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 
conclusoryassertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 10 
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) ofthe 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 for several professional journals and international conferences. 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 his field, such as evidence that he 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 contnbutions to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary's research 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 
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 petitioner's algorithms are 
no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research project must be of value to the employer 
and some segment of the population to which it will be marketed. It does not follow that every 
controls engineer who develops algorithms for increased production has contributed to the field 
of controls engineering as a whole. 
Page 11 
While the beneficiary has published several articles authored by the beneficiary in journals in the 
academic field and has presented his work at several conferences, exhibits and workshops, 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/oc%cos066.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. Id. This information reveals that original published research, 
whether arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart 
from faculty in that researcher's field. 
The beneficiary's citation history 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 has submitted 44 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 controls engineer, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, and has made useful contributions to his 
employers' projects while securing some degree of exposure for his 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)(l)(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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.