dismissed EB-1B Case: Crop Science And Genetics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17909758 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner , a public university, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of crop science and genetics. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(B), 
8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to 
foreign nationals who are internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary met the initial evidence requirements for this classification, the record did not establish 
that he is internationally recognized as outstanding. On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence 
and asserts that the Director did not consider the totality of the record . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding professor or 
researcher if: 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area , and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F) . This, however , is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding 
professor or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years 
of experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently employs the Beneficiary as a research scientist in its Division of Biological 
Sciences. The Beneficiary earned a Ph.D. in crop genetics and breeding from ~-------~ University in China in 2016, and completed a post-doctoral fellowship with the Petitioner before 
entering his current position. 
The Director concluded in his decision that the Beneficiary met three of the criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i), relating to his service as a judge of the work of others in his field, his original 
scientific contributions to the field, and his authorship of scholarly articles in the field. Upon review, 
we agree with the Director's conclusions regarding these initial evidence requirements, and will 
therefore tum to the second portion of the analysis for this classification, the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(i)(3)(i). Here, we agree with the Director that the record does not support a conclusion that the 
Beneficiary has achieved that level of recognition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to a handful of redacted versions of some of our previous decisions 
under this immigrant visa classification, stating that certain of the Beneficiary's productivity metrics 
compare favorably to those of the beneficiaries in those cases who were found to be outstanding 
professors or researchers. However, these decisions were not published as precedents and therefore 
do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions 
apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and 
policy. We also note that comparing individual metrics represented in a certain decision focuses on 
merely one aspect within the totality of the evidence presented in the record, while the final merits 
analysis takes all of the evidence into consideration. Although the Beneficiary may have more 
citations to his published research or have conducted more peer reviews than the beneficiaries in 
certain cases, as the Petitioner argues, such comparisons have little weight without the appropriate 
field-specific context and broader view of the record in those cases which cannot be obtained from a 
redacted decision. 
professors and researchers. USCIS Policy Memorandum, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD 11-14, PM-602-0005.1 (Dec. 
22, 2010). 
2 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director erred in not properly considering the rankings for the 
journals in which the Beneficiary's research was published and for which he conducted peer review. 
Specifically regarding his review activity, the Petitioner refers to the online Scimago journal rankings 
in several different scientific fields including plant science and agronomy and crop science, which 
show that several of the journals for which he reviewed manuscripts are ranked within the first quartile 
based upon "SJR" score. These include BMC Genomics, Plant Journal, and Frontiers in Plant 
Science. We first note that to the extent that these scores and rankings are indicative of journal quality 
or impact, very little difference is shown in the scores beyond the first 10 to 15 journals listed. For 
example, while the Annual Review of Plant Biology is ranked first in the plant science category with 
a score of 11.591, Plant Journal at number 14 is given a score of 3.3 76, Frontiers in Plant Science is 
ranked 31st with a score of 1.687, and Plant Physiology and BiochemistJy is ranked 75th with a score 
of 1.046. While all are listed as "Ql" journals, these figures suggest that only a few stand out in terms 
of prestige or impact in the plant science field, and the Beneficiary did not conduct peer review for 
any of those journals. 
More importantly, the Petitioner has not shown that there is any correlation between these scores and 
rankings and the standards used by these journals to select peer reviewers, or that any of the journals 
for which the Beneficiary performed peer review select only those researchers with international 
recognition in their field for this duty. I I of the University I I 
I I states in a reference letter that she invited the Beneficiary to be a review editor for Frontiers 
in Plant Science based upon his contributions to the field, and that the journal invites only "the top 
scientists to be reviewer editors since we rely on their expertise to maintain the high standards of our 
journal." Although the Petitioner submitted a page from the journal's website which confirms the 
Beneficiary's status as a review editor, the website also shows that it has more than 7300 editors, of 
which more than 4800 are review editors, the lowest of four tiers. 2 The sheer size of this group does 
not support the selectivity suggested inl I's statement. In addition, the record does not 
indicate that in this role, the Beneficiary has assumed editorial responsibilities or otherwise 
distinguished himself from his fellow review editors or other researchers performing similar roles for 
other journals. While the evidence of his service as a peer reviewer demonstrates that he is 
acknowledged as an expert in the plant science and genetics field, neither the quality or quantity of 
reviews he has conducted is indicative of recognition as outstanding at the international level. 
A similar analysis applies to the Petitioner's argument concerning the journals in which the 
Beneficiary's papers have appeared. Although he is credited as a co-author for a single article 
published in Nature, which the evidence indicates is ranked first in the multidisciplinary category, as 
noted by the Director he is one of more than one hundred contributors to the One Thousand Plants 
Initiative (IKP), and the evidence does not describe his contribution or role this initiative. More 
importantly, while the Beneficiary's work has been published in other highly-ranked journals, such as 
Nature Communications (in the broader category of chemistry) and Molecular Plant (plant science), 
we consider the field's reaction to a specific paper as far more relevant than the prestige of the journal 
in which it appeared when determining the recognition received by an author. 
Regarding the recognition of the Beneficiary's published research, the record includes evidence that 
two articles released by the Petitioner which discuss the research and paper published in Nature 
2 See https://www.frontiersin.org/joumals/plant-science#editorial-board, accessed on December 7, 2021. 
3 
Communications in 2019 were carried by several websites. Both articles quote the Beneficiary, and 
one identifies him as the lead author of the study which traced the genetic history ofl I 
I I vegetables. While the publication of these press releases show that the Petitioner 
considered the Beneficiary's research important enough to promote by distributing them to 
organizations which focus on publishing such materials, the evidence does not indicate that their 
appearance on these websites reflects independent recognition from others in the field. Notably, the 
websites did not alter the content of the news releases supplied by the Petitioner or otherwise provide 
comment, and the record lacks detailed information regarding whether or how the websites screen 
news releases which are sent to them. 
The Petitioner also submitted news releases from several of the institutions involved with thee=] 
about the publication of its research results in Nature. As with the news releases discussed above, the 
promotion by these institutions of the results of their own researchers work does not serve to show 
recognition of that work by others in the field. Further, as noted above, the Beneficiary is listed as 
one of more than 100 contributors to this research, and his contribution and role are not explained in 
the record. Therefore this evidence does not show that he received recognition for his work on this 
project. 
The record also includes evidence regarding citations to the Beneficiary's work by other researchers. 
This includes partial copies of several of those citing articles which includes the text of the citation, 
which the Petitioner asserts demonstrates that the Beneficiary's work has impacted that of other 
researchers in his field. However, the Petitioner does not refute the Director's statement that the 
citation of the work of other researchers is "not uncommon in the field" on appeal, but focuses on the 
ranking of the journals in which these citations appear. While we agree with the Petitioner that these 
citations indicate that the Beneficiary's work "has been read by and has impacted the work of others 
in the field," and that the rate of citations to a researcher's work is an accurate barometer of the 
recognition of their work by others in the field, this evidence does not show that the nature of that 
impact makes him stand out from other researchers. Many of the papers in the record cite the 
Beneficiary's research as an example of research done in the field, or in the introduction section as 
part of an overview of current research, but none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that 
indicates that it is considered outstanding. 
Other evidence concerning the citations to the Beneficiary's published work include abstracts of some 
of his articles which show metrics including a "Dimensions Badge" and an "Altmetric Score." 
Documentation about the Altmetric Score states that it is an indicator of the amount of attention a 
paper has received based upon a variety of sources including biogs, Wikipedia and social media 
platforms, and notes that "it can't tell you anything about the quality of the article itself." Regarding 
the Dimensions Badge, the evidence shows that two of the articles authored by the Beneficiary are 
considered to be "extremely highly cited" as they have received five times more citations than average 
compared with publications in the same field, while others received no score. While this evidence 
may indicate that these papers were somewhat more influential in the field, and thus serves to validate 
his original contributions to the field, it does not demonstrate that his body of work as a whole has 
been internationally recognized as outsranding. 
In support of the Beneficiary's contributions to the field of plant science and genetics, the Petitioner 
also submitted several reference letters. As noted in the Director's decision, these writers indicate that 
4 
they know of the Beneficiary and his work through his presentations at scientific conferences, and 
some indicate that they have cited to his published research in their own . .__ _______ _. of 
.__ _____ _.University in Australia states that he cited to the Beneficiary's work published in 
Molecular Ecology about the~------~o~ l and comments that this is "a clear 
sign that his work has informed my own efforts." However, he does not indicate that this work 
influenced his own work or that of others in the field in a substantial way that is indicative of 
international recognition of the Beneficiary's work as outstanding. He also notes that the Beneficiary's 
more recent work published in Nature Communications has agricultural applications, and that he is 
"contributing to scientific areas of research that have findings of global significance," but the 
significance of the area of the Beneficiary's research is not pertinent to his standing in that field. 
Another reference letter was written byl ~ of the University ofj I Similar to 
I ts letter, he writes that the Beneficiary's research on thel I of crops in the 
I I family has potential applications in plant breeding and thus "the worldwide food industry," 
and that it has provided a foundation for future genetic studies of these crops. We recognize that 
research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for 
publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, but not every research finding that broadens 
knowledge in a particular field renders an individual's work as outstanding or internationally 
recognized in his academic area. 
Our review of the totality of the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled researcher. 
However, the Petitioner has not established that he stands apart in the academic community based on 
international recognition of his work in the field of plant science and genetics. After consideration of 
the totality of the evidence of the Beneficiary's work in the areas of plant science and genetics, 
including his scholarly publications and their citation by other researchers, his service as a peer 
reviewer, published media about his work, and the opinions of other experts in his field, we conclude 
that this documentation does not sufficiently establish that he has been internationally recognized as 
an outstanding researcher. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility for the requested 
classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5