dismissed EB-1B Case: Educational Research

i&naybg date &1&ed to 
p~ere~t csepriy unwa-M 
invaioa d penoaei priv.cy 
U.S. Department of £lomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
 b3 
WAC 05 049 52 199 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
k Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner lists its type of business as "higher education." It seeks to classifL the beneficiary as an 
outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a research analyst. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that 
it is a qualifying employer or that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in an 
academic field, as required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred procedurally by issuing a "vague" request for 
additional evidence that failed to identify any deficiencies in the record. Counsel asserts that the 
petitioner was only advised of deficiencies in the denial, at which point "the record was closed." 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988) only precludes the submission of new evidence on 
appeal when the petitioner was on notice that the evidence was required and failed to submit the 
evidence previously. If it is counsel's contention that the petitioner was not on notice of the 
deficiencies until the issuance of the denial, then that case does not preclude the submission of new 
evidence on appeal, provided it relates to the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak; 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The most 
appropriate remedy for any failure of the director to request specific evidence previously would be 
for this office to consider any evidence that might have been submitted in response to such a request 
on appeal. The new evidence submitted on appeal and counsel's specific assertions regarding the 
director's legal and factual conclusions will be considered below. 
For the reasons discussed below, while we withdraw the director's findings that the beneficiary does 
not work in an academic field and that the petitioner is not a qualifying employer, we concur with the 
director's finding that the beneficiary meets only one of the regulatory criteria, of which an alien 
must meet at least two.' 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
1 
As will be discussed below, we concur with the director's analysis of the evidence but find that the 
beneficiary meets a different criterion than the director found due to the director's discussion of the 
beneficiary's publication record under the contributions criterion, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(D), instead of under 
the scholarly articles criterion, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), and his discussion of the lack of general 
recognition of the beneficiary's work at the end of the decision rather than under the contributions criterion. 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) 
 for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
() 
 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 petitioner submitted Internet materials explaining that it is a district "made up of three community 
college campuses" and "six Centers for Education and Technology." The beneficiary works at the 
petitioner's Office of Institutional Research and Planning (IRP). IRP is located in the petitioner's 
"administrative headquarters" and "supports the District's strategic planning efforts through data and 
enrollment analysis as well as identifying trends, tracking legislation and preparing research items for 
the Board of Trustees." 
The director concluded that while the petitioner "operates institutions of higher learning, it is not itself 
an institute of higher learning. It is the administrative unit or umbrella organization for the district and 
it employs the beneficiary." On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "is, in fact, defined by the 
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics [(NCES)] as an Institute of 
Higher Learning." In support of this assertion, counsel submits the results from a search for colleges on 
NCES' website by zip code. The results list six colleges, one of which is the petitioner's "District Off." 
The search results provided on appeal specify that the petitioner is an office. The record is absent any 
evidence that the petitioner itself admits students, issues degrees or offers any courses of study. 
Nevertheless, the petitioner appears to provide the type of administrative services that are typically part 
of an institution of higher learning for the institutions in its districts. Thus, while the director's 
concerns were rational, we are satisfied that the petitioner technically qualifies as an institution of 
higher learning. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching andlor 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andlor research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from former or current employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on December 8, 2004 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of "educational research." Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at 
least three years of research experience in this field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has 
been recognized internationally within the field of "educational research" as outstanding. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary "is not working in an academic field." The director reaches 
this conclusion because the beneficiary's Form 1-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonirnmigrant (F-1) 
Student Status, lists the beneficiary's major as "agricultural education" and the beneficiary is currently 
researching student retention at the colleges within the petitioner's district. Counsel does not address 
this concern on appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge 
offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher learning." The 
beneficiary's thesis at the Ohio State University, an accredited university, focused on identifying factors 
relating to transfer students' academic performance and retention. As such, we are persuaded that the 
beneficiary's field is offered for study at an accredited United States university and, thus, is an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling 
purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet 
these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 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 
Page 5 
criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703,30705 (July 5, 1991). The criteria follow. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the Association for Institutional Research (AIR) recognized the 
beneficiary's presentation as "Best Paper" in 2004. The Ohio State University also recognized the 
beneficiary as a volunteer in 2000 and for outstanding academic achievement. The director only 
considered the beneficiary's Best Paper award and concluded that the record lacked evidence that it was 
a major prize or award. On appeal, counsel notes that the director misstated the regulation and asserts 
that the petitioner submitted evidence documenting the significance of AIR. Counsel concludes that 
being "judged best paper for presentation at this organization's annual conference connotes a major 
award." 
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 (November 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. Cf: 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally 
or internationally recognized awards for a separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
The petitioner did submit materials from AIR'S own website indicating that it is a "professional 
association of more than 3,100 instituional researchers, planners and decision-makers from higher 
education instituitons around the world." This information does not establish that the Best Paper award 
issued by this association is significant. For example, there is no evidence that the general or trade 
media cover the selections for Best Paper award. That said, we do not find that the award has no 
evidentiary value. Rather, we will consider the award as evidence of the significance of the 
beneficiary's published work below. 
Regarding the beneficiary's academic award, while the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(3)(A) 
references outstanding achievements in one's academic field, 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic 
field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study." The definition does not include typical 
bases for academic achievement awards, such as grade point average and class standing. It remains, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. Rather, academic study is training 
for a future career in an academic field. As such, awards in recognition of academic achievement, such 
as grade point average, are insufficient. In addition, while The Ohio State University may be a 
respected university, it remains that the beneficiary only competed against other students at the 
Page 6 
university at that time for the academic achievement award. The beneficiary's student award is simply 
not evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, it represents high academic achievements 
in comparison with her fellow students. 
Finally, the beneficiary's recognition as a volunteer cannot be considered a major prize or field for 
outstanding achievement in her academic field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in The Ohio State University 
Chapter of Phi Kappa Phi. The petitioner also submitted evidence that membership is by invitation 
only and that those elected include the upper 7.5 percent of last-term juniors and the upper 10 percent 
of seniors along with "outstanding graduate students, faculty, professional staff, and alumni." 
Additional materials submitted by the petitioner reveal that graduate students "must rank in the top 10 
percent of their class." Individual chapters may have more selective standards, suggesting that 
membership is judged by the local chapter. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's membership in Phi Kappa Phi was recognition of her 
accomplishments as a student, not in her academic field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director 
should have visited Phi Kappa Phi's website and failed to consider that faculty and alumni are eligible 
for membership. The petitioner submits additional membership information regarding Phi Kappa Phi, 
indicating that "faculty, professional staff and alumni who have achieved scholarly distinction" are 
eligible for membership. The materials further indicate that Phi Kappa Phi is "an all-discipline honor 
society." 
It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility. 
 While Citizenship and 
Immigration Services is not precluded fiom verifying information submitted or claims made via the 
Internet, the director was not obligated to attempt to prove the beneficiary's eligibility through Internet 
research. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) mandates that the association 
"require" outstanding achievements of their members. As discussed above, class rank is not an 
outstanding achievement in one's field. Thus, whether or not faculty, staff and alumni are eligible 
based on non-academic achievements, it remains that Phi Kappa Phi does not require such 
achievements for membership. Significantly, the beneficiary was elected while a student. Finally, as 
an "all-discipline" honor society, Phi Kappa Phi is not an association "in the academic field" as also 
required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 director concluded that while the beneficiary had received inquiries about her work and "may have 
been cited in some publications," no articles had been published "about" the beneficiary's work. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that while this criterion was not originally claimed, "there was evidentiary 
support for the fact that numerous academics in [the beneficiary's] field personally contacted her for 
permission to cite to her work in their own articles for publication." 
Evidence that others have expressed an interest in citing the beneficiary's work is not evidence that the 
beneficiary's work has, in fact, been cited. Regardless, articles which cite the beneficiary's work are 
primarily about the author's own work, not the beneficiary. As such, they cannot be considered 
published material about the beneficiary. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 record reflects that the beneficiary was one of 16 members of peer review teams set up by the 
Research and Planning (RP) Group for California Community Colleges "to assist in the review of the 
methodology being proposed by the Chancellor's Office for the Board of Governors-directed evaluation 
of the [Partnership for Excellence (PFE)] goals." The beneficiary was not one of the team leaders. Her 
team reviewed "the methodology the Chancellor's Office [has] developed for calculating the course 
completion rate." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
petitioner had reviewed conference proposals and manuscripts after the date the petition was filed. The 
director considered only the evidence submitted in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence and concluded it was insufficient. On appeal, counsel correctly notes that the director failed 
to consider the beneficiary's work on the RP Group, submitted initially. We will consider that evidence 
below. 
The regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is 
deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703,30705 (July 5, 1991). Thus, the evidence submitted to meet 
a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with international recognition if that statutory 
standard is to have any meaning. The beneficiary was already working as a research analyst for the 
petitioner, an administrative agency overseeing a California district of community colleges, when she 
worked on the RP Group peer review team. The RP Group peer review team was a California group 
assembled to review proposals for California. The record lacks evidence that the review teams 
included international or even national experts. Thus, the evidence is not indicative of or consistent 
with international recognition. Rather, the responsibilities appear consistent with her job duties. We 
cannot consider the beneficiary's review responsibilities after the date of filing as evidence of her 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 4549 (Reg. 
Comm. 1971). Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
Under this criterion, the director stated only: ''Tn the five years since the beneficiary was awarded her 
Ph.D. at [The] Ohio State [University] in Agricultural Science, she has been very productive and has 
written by herself and with others over a dozen articles and a children's book." The director does not 
provide any additional analysis or conclusion. Understandably, counsel presumes that this criterion is 
met. The only discussion, however, relates to the beneficiary's published work. Such evidence, while 
relevant to this criterion, is far more directly related to the scholarly articles criterion set forth in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(E). In the director's concluding paragraph, he concludes that the 
reference letters submitted "do not show that the [beneficiary's] work has gained significant notice in 
the field among individuals who have not worked directly with the [beneficiary]." This conclusion 
seems far more relevant to this criterion, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(D), than the discussion actually 
provided under this criterion. On appeal, counsel does respond to this stated concern, noting that the 
petitioner submitted several letters from independent references. Thus, our review of the evidence 
relating to this criterion does not raise new concerns of which the petitioner was unaware. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, 
and demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's 
degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria 
is to demonstrate that the beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it 
stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To 
argue that all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any 
usehl meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
at The Ohio State University, served on the beneficiary's 
iscusses the beneficiary's research while a student there. Specifically, 
the beneficiary used a questionnaire survey and interview techniques to ascertain that study-abroad 
programs contribute to the students7 development of global 
 intercultural sensitivity and 
self-confidence. D- senior Associate Dean and Director of Academic Affairs at The 
Ohio State University and chair of the beneficiary's graduate committee, asserts that this work "has 
been used to enhance the international programs in our college. Separate research by the beneficiary 
revealed that academic performance at a vrevious institution was an im~ortant medictor of success after 
transfer to a new institution. According to ~rthe beneficiary proposed a systemic 
academic performance monitoring system for these students. Dr. serts that research on 
withdrawing students is difficult due to low response rates, but the beneficiary's efforts made it possible 
to get direct input from these students. In addition, the beneficiary created databases to track GPA and 
retention rates. 
the petitioner's Chancellor, asserts that the beneficiary's research "on community college 
student retention, student satisfaction, quality of student services and recommendations to provide 
working adults more flexible class scheduling "is very important for helping underrepresented students 
succeed in higher education." Chancellor Gallego concludes that the beneficiary's publication record 
"convince[s] me that [the beneficiary] has contributed and will continue to contribute tremendously to 
our understanding important issues in community colleges and in higher education." Publication of 
scholarly work, however, is a separate criterion. We will not presume that meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion always serves to meet this criterion as well. Such a presumption would render 
meaningless the requirement that an alien meet at least two criteria. 
As noted by counsel, the petitioner does submit letters from independent references. We will consider 
these letters below. In analyzing these letters, we consider the following. The opinions of experts in 
the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a success~l claim of 
international recognition. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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. 1988). However, CIS 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; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 
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. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of international 
recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have already 
influenced the field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of 
the petitioner through her reputation and who have applied her work are far more persuasive than 
letters from independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely 
responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an 
opinion based solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the 
petition canies greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the 
petition. An individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that recognition. 
As noted by counsel, the petitioner submitted two congressional letters. The Honorable Susan Davis, a 
U.S. Representative from California, indicates that she is relying on the representations of the petitioner 
as to the beneficiary's accomplishments, with no prior knowledge of the beneficiary's work. Similarly, 
Page 10 
the Honorable Bob Filner, also a U.S. Representative, indicates that his letter is based on a request from 
the petitioner, and not first hand knowledge of the beneficiary's accomplishments in the field. We 
acknowledge the Congressional interest in this case and, as with every case before us, will give due 
consideration to all of the evidence of record. 
Dr , a principal research in the Student Affairs Information and Research Office at the 
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), asserts that the beneficiary's retenti 
"provided very insightful information for the top administrators in higher education." Dr ~:s2 
that the beneficiary's research has been recognized as important through "publications and 
presentations." As stated above, however, the mere fact that the beneficiary has been published and has 
presented her work is insufficient to meet the contributions crite 
w 
ternational exposure is not 
necessarily indicative of international recognition. 
 Finally, Dr 
 asserts that based on the 
beneficiary's research, she recommended that study abroad p 
 s "be included in general education 
curriculum and be available to every college student." Dr. Mr' does not assert, however, that most 
study abroad programs have previously been limited and that universitie 
w 
-wide have expanded 
their study abroad programs based on the beneficiary's work. In fact, D 
 does not suggest that 
UCLA previously limited study abroad to a small segment of its student body and is broadening the 
program based on the beneficiary's results. 
~r.~hief planning, Research and Knowledge Officer at Cabrillo College in California and 
vast President of the RP Grou~. asserts that his o~inion is based on the beneficiarv's resume. 
A, 
publications and "contacts with her at various traie conferences." 
 Dr.asse&s that the 
's research on retention "would certainly lead to a promising solution to this national issue." 
D belim oes not, however, suggest that the beneficiary's work has 
 led to programs designed 
to improve retention internationally or even nationwide. Similarly, D ak serts that the beneficiary 
suggested means of enhancing study abroad programs without providin examples of higher education 
institutions actually implementing those suggestions. Finally, Dr eculates that the beneficiary's 
work on community college satisfaction "will lay groundwork for bridging this research gap in 
community colleges." Speculation that the beneficiary's work will be recognized internationally as a 
contribution is insufficient, regardless of how well founded or sincere. The beneficiary must be already 
recognized internationally to be eligible for the classification sought. 
Dr., Director of Institutional Effectiveness at Bethel College in Tennessee, opines that 
the beneficiary's research "could very well impact every sector of higher education, including students, 
faculty, staff and constituencies." Far more persuasive of international recognition of the beneficiary's 
contributions would be examples where the beneficiary's work has already impacted these sectors. Dr. 
her asserts that the beneficiary's "novel and profound research results are clearly applicable 
to any institution of higher education nationwide." however, provides no examples of 
nationwide reliance on the beneficiary's studies. Dr that Bethel College is 
increasing retention and study abroad programs base 
Finally, in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter 
from ~r.~ssistant Dean for Research and Planning at Columbia University. ~r.=~ 
asserts that he knows the beneficiary "through her contributions to the discussions of research projects 
and higher education policy issues in the OCAIR listserv." He further asserts that he has read a number 
of the beneficiary's research papers. ~rvo~ines that the beneficiary's work "will provide the 
tools to greatly enhance the development o strategies for retaining more and successfbl students in 
higher education." ~r. provides no e f such tools developed by institutions of higher 
learning based on the beneficiary's work. Dr 
 asserts that the beneficiary's student satisfaction 
survey instrument "has important uses by community colleges for the accountability measures and 
student learning outcome assessment." We will evaluate the evidence of the impact of the beneficiary's 
surveys below. 
The petitioner submitted e-mail messages from Arizona, Louisiana, Rhode Island and California 
requesting additional information about the beneficiary's published work, including her surveys. Many 
of these messages appear to be from students wishing to perform similar studies for their own 
dissertations. The petitioner has not demonstrated that it is remarkable for a published researcher to 
receive at least a small number of inquiries into her work. Without citation evidence, the petitioner has 
not established that these individuals did, in fact, rely on the beneficiary's surveys. We will not 
presume that every expression of interest results in citation or other reliance by the inquirer. 
On December 18, 2001, 
 of UCLA advised that she would like to acquire the 
beneficiary's presentation 
 Resources Information Center (ERIC), a searchable 
database of education-related research. The record is absent information regarding how exclusive 
ERIC is. Without evidence that ERIC is limited to the most notable contributions in the field, as 
opposed to providing a clearinghouse of a broad range of materials in the field, we cannot conclude that 
this inquiry is significant. While the inclusion would make the beneficiary's work more widely 
available, as stated above, international exposure is not always equivalent to international recognition. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary' proposal was recognized as a "Best Paper" by AIR. While we 
will consider this award below as evidence relating to the significance of the beneficiary's published 
work, it is not indicative that the beneficiary's results have already impacted the field. The 
beneficiary's work was selected for this award prior to being presented and disseminated. As such, its 
impact was unknown at the time of selection. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's contributions have garnered her international 
recognition. As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 published articles and has presented 
her work at conferences. The director concluded that the record lacked evidence that the publications 
had an international circulation. On appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner submitted evidence that 
the petitioner provided information about the Journal of International Agricultural Education, 
reflecting domestic and foreign subscription rates. Counsel fbrther notes that the beneficiary had been 
published in the Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, whose very title 
implies an international circulation. We concur with counsel and withdraw the director's finding on 
this issue. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report und Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a fbll-time academic and/or research career," and that "the 
appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship 
during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's 
work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a hll-time academic andlor 
research career." This report reinforces our position that publication of scholarly articles is not 
automatically evidence of international recognition; we must consider the research community's 
reaction to those articles. 
The record lacks evidence that the beneficiary has been cited by independent research teams or, in fact, 
at all. As stated above, we will not presume that inquiries expressing interest in the beneficiary's work 
will lead to citation or reliance on the work. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the beneficiary's 
conference presentation proposal was recognized as a "Best Paper" by the conference organizer. The 
beneficiary's published work was also solicited for ERIC. Thus, we find that the beneficiary minimally 
meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of her collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for her work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international 
reputation as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.