dismissed EB-1B Case: Electrical And Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24187995 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 21, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/ Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a smartphone technologies company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor or researcher . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 153(b )(1 )(B). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic 
field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter oJChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 53 7 n .2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act provides that an individual is an outstanding professor or researcher 
if: 
(i) the individual is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the individual has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the individual 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. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficia received a Master of Science degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from 
Institute in 2013 and a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the 
University __ in 2019. He served as a Senior Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC) 
Research Design Engineer at ___________ from July 2019 until August 2021. 
The Beneficiary has been employed as a Senior Staff Research Engineer with the Petitioner since 
September 2021. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F), thus satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of 
the record did not establish the requisite international recognition in his field. 2 Upon review, we 
conclude that the evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, 
original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly 
articles. 3 As he therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of 
record when conducting the final merits determination. 
B. 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, 4 
1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate an individual's eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher in their academic field. 
See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Academic field means "a body of specialized 
knowledge offered for study at an accredited U.S. university or institution of higher education." See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(2). 
By regulatory definition, a body of specialized knowledge is larger than a very small area of specialization in which only 
a single course is taught or that is the subject of a very specialized dissertation. For example, it would be acceptable to 
conclude that a beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher in particle physics rather than physics in general, as 
long as it has been demonstrated that the claimed field is "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an 
accredited United States university or institution of higher education." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B). 
2 The Director determined that the Beneficiary satisfied the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) and (F). 
3 We agree with the Petitioner's arguments on appeal that the Director's first-step analysis of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A), (C), and (D) included several problematic statements. For example, with respect to the major 
prizes or awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A), the language of the regulation does not require "internationally 
recognized prizes or awards" as indicated in the Director's decision. In addition, regarding the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), the language of the regulation does not require "international recognition" as stated by the Director. 
The Director's statements requiring evidence of international recognition are relevant to the final merits determination and 
not the first-step evaluation of the aforementioned regulatory criteria. 
4 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what it claims 
is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
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). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 5 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director overlooked or did not properly 
evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualifies under 
the high standards of this immigrant visa classification. It contends that the Director did not properly 
analyze the Beneficiary's awards, peer review service, authorship of scholarly articles and patents, 
letters of support, and published material about his work (citations). The Petitioner further argues that 
the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile listing 71 citations shows his "widespread influence." 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria 
must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. Therefore, to the extent that 
the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language requirements of two specific 
evidentiary criteria (relating to research contributions and authorship of scholarly articles), and then 
evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the international level, his analysis for those two criteria 
was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to the requested immigrant visa 
classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's part1c1pation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence indicating that he has peer reviewed six papers for IEEE Transactions on Circuits 
and Systems II: Express Briefs since 2018. An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's 
judging experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding 
achievement required for this classification. 6 In many scientific and academic fields, peer review is a 
routine part of the process through which articles are selected for publication or presentation at 
conferences. Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an 
individual is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field. Here, the Petitioner has 
not established that the level of the Beneficiary's participation as a reviewer of manuscripts is indicative 
of or consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. 7 
At issue here is the extent to which the Beneficiary's peer review activities have required, reflected, 
or resulted in him being recognized internationally as outstanding in his field. The Petitioner, however, 
did not present documentation indicating the aforementioned journal's specific requirements for 
selection of peer reviewers. For instance, reviewing manuscripts for journals or conferences that select 
5 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's research 
contributions, patent applications, published work, and citation evidence, and explained why that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record. was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the international 
level. 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to detennine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
7 For example, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that the specific journal that invited the Beneficiary to 
serve as a peer reviewer reserves its invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
academic field. 
3 
their reviewers based on subject matter expertise would not provide strong support for the petition, 
because possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than being recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. Therefore, although the record shows that 
the Beneficiary has reviewed multiple articles for IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: 
Express Briefs, this evidence does not demonstrate how his peer review activity compares to or 
differentiates him from his peers in the field. Similarly, the record does not show that the Beneficiary 
has received any international recognition for his service as a peer reviewer. Without this or other 
evidence differentiating him from others in his field, 8 the Petitioner has not established how the 
Beneficiary's peer review experience contributes to establishing that he is internationally recognized 
as outstanding in his academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussin his research projects at University I I under the guidance of his Ph.D. advisor, 
9 For example, regarding the Beneficiary's research involving RFIC design, 
____ an assistant professor University of Technology, Netherlands, stated that the 
Beneficiary had "success in advancing a new ultra-low-power temperature sensor that reduces output 
consumption and allows operation with ultra-low supply voltages." He further explained that "in the 
method [ the Beneficiary] proposed, the pulse width modulated (PWM) temperature output is generated 
by by comparing a temperature-dependent voltage with another temperature-independent voltage." 10 
did not sufficiently detail in what ways the Beneficiary's findings have advanced the state of 
research in the academic field or explain how the Beneficiary's work has affected the wider field 
beyond the one team of researchers who have directly cited to the aforementioned work. 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. 
In addition an associate professor atl !University, asserted that 
and the Beneficiary's paper, "entitled 
_ published in IEEE Custom Inte rated Circuits Con erence was roundbreakin . "11 
indicated that their a er " ro osed a 
Likewise, 
an associate professor at University, stated that the aforementioned paper 
" ro osed a 
" While describe the ___________________ __________ 
Beneficiary's research as "innovative" and "significant," they did not offer specific examples of how 
8 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
evidence that he has completed reviews for a substantial number of distinguished journals or conferences relative to others 
in his field, served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired prominent evaluation 
committees for reputable conferences. 
9 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 According to the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile, his and larticle in IEEE Sensors Journal reporting 
this work has received just one citation. 
11 The Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile shows that this article has received three citations. 
4 
his findings have affected the integrated circuits industry, have been widely utilized in the electrical 
engineering field, or have otherwise influenced his field at a level commensurate with being 
internationally recognized as outstanding. 
Furthermore, an associate professor atl !University, stated that the 
Beneficiary "proposed a unique multiphase controller to directly control a power amplifier for high 
phase/ gain resolution with reduced loss by performing a vector addition of the beam phase and 
amplitude." While ______ asserted that the Beneficiary's controller "allows for 
beamforming operation at higher efficiency and linearity and provides more flexibility to transmit the 
signal directionally," the record does not show that the Beneficiary's work has had a meaningful 
impact in the academic field or has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is recognized 
internationally as outstanding. Similarly, a professor atl luniversiteit 
I I Belgium, indicated that the Beneficiary's "fully digital transmitter beamforming system 
achiev[es] low phase resolution and low gain error with high output power and system efficiency," 
but he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Beneficiary's work has affected the field 
of electrical engineering in a substantial way that signifies international recognition or outstanding 
achievement in the academic field. 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters show "the Beneficiary's overall 'outstanding' 
reputation and international acclaim within the field." The letters of support offered by the Petitioner, 
however, do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate 
corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the overall academic field, 
rather than by the references he selected, as substantially influential or otherwise indicative of 
international recognition. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary's publication record shows that he is internationally 
recognized as outstanding. It claims that the Beneficiary has authored multiple articles in highly 
ranked journals and conferences. A high ranking is reflective of a publication's overall citation rate. 
It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's 
research has had an impact within the field. Further, the evidence in the record does not establish that 
publication in a journal or conference with a high ranking alone is sufficient to demonstrate that a 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. As authoring scholarly 
articles is often inherent to the work of professors and researchers, the citation history or other 
evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and 
recognition that his work has had on the field and whether his articles demonstrate that he is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 12 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile showing that 19 of his research 
articles had received 71 cumulative citations. 13 This Google Scholar information also indicated that 
the Beneficiary's four hi hest cited articles, entitled 
2018 2019), 
_________________________ (2019), and 
12 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
13 We note that all 19 of the Beneficiary's research articles were coauthored with his Ph.D. advisor, 
5 
(2017) each received 19, 
13, 10, and 6 citations, respectively. The Beneficiary's remaining 15 articles each received five 
I 
citations or less. The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles 
were self-citations by the Beneficiary or his coauthors. Regardless, without comparative statistical 
evidence indicating how often others in the Beneficiary's field are cited, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the number of citations received by his publications represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
Additi1 10na y, e et1t1oner SU mit e examp es O some O t e researc artIC es, me U ing 
international articles, which cited to the Beneficiary's work. 14 For instance, an article authored bv 
11 th P iti b itt d f f h h . 1 1 d i
I entitled I I 
cites to the Beneficiary and I I paper, entitled I I 
I The article's author identified the 
Beneficiary and I I paper, stating: I I 
I 
I The author further explained: I 
I This article does not distinguish 
or highlight the Beneficiary's work from the 20 other papers referenced in the article. 
Another research article published by entitled of a ers, entitled 
(2017) and 
_____ 2018). 15 The authors referenced the aforementioned two papers stating that the 
I has been introduced" as a way to overcome drawbacks to the quadrature 
architecture, including "decreased power efficiency and output power." The authors go on to state, 
however, that "there is no present implementation of the I I supporting very wide 
bandwidth." This article does not differentiate the Beneficiary and I 2018 paper from the 
47 other papers referenced in the article or otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work is 
outstanding. The Petitioner has not established how citations of this kind translate into international 
recognition or outstanding achievement. 
The remaining research article examples presented by the Petitioner generally discuss the cited source 
articles in similar terms and there is no special emphasis on the Beneficiary's work. The submitted 
articles acknowledge his contributions to the advancement of what appears to be an active field of 
research but are not indications that the Beneficiary has been recognized internationally as outstanding 
in the academic field. 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has taken 
some notice of his work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his 
14 These articles which cite to the Beneficiary's work are primarily about the authors' own research, and not the 
Beneficiary's work. As such, they do not constitute published material about the Beneficiary's work. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(i 3 i C . 
15 While latter paper from 2018 was coauthored with the Beneficiary, his initial paper from 2017 introducing 
the did not include the Beneficiary as an author. 
6 
published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with 
being recognized internationally in his field. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the number of citations to the Beneficiary's work represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence that the Beneficiary and I I have coauthored two U.S. 
patents and one U.S. patent application. While a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does 
not by itself demonstrate that the inventor has made a research contribution to the academic field that 
signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement. Rather, the significance of the 
innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the Petitioner provided documentation 
showing that one of the Beneficiary and I I patents has been listed as a cited reference on 
another research team's U.S. patent, but this evidence does not show in what ways the Beneficiary's 
invention has advanced the state of research in the academic field or explain how the Beneficiary's 
work has affected the wider field beyond this one team of researchers who referenced his patent. The 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's patented inventions have had an impact that is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the electrical engineering field. 
Furthermore, the record includes documentation indicating that the Beneficiary and I I 
presented their work at both the 2017 and 2019 IEEEI ISymposium.16 The Petitioner did not, for 
example, provide evidence from the symposium organizer that invited the Beneficiary to participate 
indicating that it reserves its invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as 
outstanding in the academic field. The Beneficiary's participation in this symposium demonstrates 
that his research findings were shared with others in his field, but without documenting broader impact 
of his presented research, such participation is not sufficient to show that his work is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted information from the National Science Foundation NSF 
showing thatl {the "Principal Investigator") received fonding from the 
I J Program to conduct research at the University _ 17 With 
regard to the Beneficiary's participation in I I research project that was funded by the 
NSF'sl !Program, we note that a substantial amount of scientific programs are funded by grants 
from a variety of public and private sources. The past achievements of the principal investigator (such 
as I I are a factor in grant proposals because the fonding institution has to be assured that 
the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not 
16 The Petitioner claims on appeal that the Beneficiary's presentation at the IEEr:e=]Symposium is documentation of 
his receipt of a major prize or award for outstanding achievement in the academic field. See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
Giving an oral conference presentation, however, does not constitute receipt of a major prize or award for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field. While the Petitioner submitted information from the 2017 IEEE Symposium 
showing that its organizers specifically recognized attendees with "Student Paper Awards.I I 
Award, and A ward," there is no indication that the Beneficiary received a specific prize or award 
at this conference. 
17 The Petitioner contends on appeal that this funding from the NSF is documentation of the Beneficiary's receipt of a 
major prize or award for outstanding achievement in the academic field. See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). The record. 
however, does not include evidence from the NSF identifying the Beneficiary as an "awardee" or stating that its award 
was given based on the Beneficiary's outstanding achievement in the field. Instead, the information from the NSF only 
identifies the Beneficiary as a coauthor on one of[ I eleven "publications produced as a result of this research." 
7 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's participation in an NSF-funded research project renders him 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled electrical engineering researcher, the 
Petitioner has not established that he stands apart in the academic field through outstanding 
achievement and international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of the 
Beneficiary's work in the areas of RFIC design and digital transmitters, including evidence of his 
research articles, citations to those articles by others in the field, his peer review service and patents, 
and the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude that this documentation does not sufficiently 
establish that he has been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the field. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary previously received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Sunlift Int'l v. Mayorkas, et al., 2021 WL 3111627 (N.D. Cal. 
2021); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, ajfd, 
905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating 
the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a 
district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an 
individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. 
See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F), and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A 
review of the totality of the evidence, however, does not establish that the Beneficiary is internationally 
recognized as an outstanding professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for 
the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8