dismissed EB-1B Case: Electronic Design Automation

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 2 3 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massa chusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washingt on, DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
Thi s is a non-pre cedent deci sion. The AAO does not announce new construction s of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Tha~-- L 
- :· ·:: :::..<::)-;;. 
\. 
Ron Rosenb' . 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed . 
The petitioner is an electronic design automation (EDA) tools developer. It seeks to classify 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. § 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
Staff Research and Development (R&D) Engineer. The director determined 
that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary had attained the level of achievement required for classification as an 
outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition as outstanding. 
Specifically, when the AAO simply "counts" the evidence submitted, the petitioner has submitted qualifying 
evidence under two of the regulatory criteria as required, judging the work of others and scholarly articles 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the final merits determination, however , 
much of the evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria reflects routine duties or accomplishments in 
the field that do not, as of the date of filing the petition, set the beneficiary apart in the academic community 
through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 1 
Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg . 
60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record lacks the actual job offer issued by the petitioner to the 
beneficiary. An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterpri ses, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp . 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis) . 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described m this 
subparagraph if-
1 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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, 
(II) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(ill) 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. Job Offer from Qualifying Employer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor certification is not 
required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, division, or 
institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
In the instant matter , the petitioner has not submitted its job offer letter to the beneficiary as required by 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). Instead, the petitioner submitted a letter in support of the instant petition, 
addressed to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), describing the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
offer of employment to the beneficiary. This letter is not addressed directly to the beneficiary and thus does 
not constitute a job offer letter to the beneficiary. The ordinary meaning of an "offer " requires that it be made 
to the offeree, not a third party. See Black's Law Dictionary 1189-90 (9
1
h ed. 2009) (defining "offer" as "the 
act or an instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a contract 
on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an acceptance, 
having been sought, will result in a binding contract;" defining "offeree" as "[o]ne to whom an offer is 
made;" and defining "offeror" as "[o]ne who makes an offer") . 
In light of the above, the petitioner failed to submit required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
A. Law 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 and/or 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 
and/or research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the alien. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on September 18, 2012, seeking to 
classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field of computer science, specifically , in the area of 
Electronic Design Automation (EDA). Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least 
three years of teaching and/or research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has 
been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding . The beneficiary has over eight years of research 
experience: from September 2004 to July 2009 he conducted research towards the acquisition of his Ph.D . in 
computer science and engineering; and in August 2009 he began working as a researcher for the petitioning 
entity . At issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary's work has been 
recognized internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must 
be accompanied by "[e]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internation ally as outstanding in 
the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists the following six criteria, of which the 
beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least two. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which 
require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in 
the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
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. US CIS, 596 F. 3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with 
the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(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." !d. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations ? Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three 
types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The cou1t also 
explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
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)). 
(b)(6)
Page6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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.P.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). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the 
context of a final merits determination.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. 
The AAO maintains de novo review. See 8 C.P.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
B. Analysis 
1. Evidentiary Criteria 
4 
The petitioner initially asserted that the beneficiary was submitting qualifying evidence under three of the six 
criteria. The director determined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence under two of the criteria. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under two 
of the criteria. 
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 and papers for journals and 
conferences within the same or an allied academic field. The AAO concurs with the director that this 
evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic fi eld. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary's 
contributions themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That said, the plain language of the 
regulation does not simply require original research, but original "research contributions." Had the regulation 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under 
three criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, requires 
qualifying evidence under only two criteria. · 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have included the extra 
word "contributions." 
As evidence that the beneficiary has made original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field, the petitioner submitted reference letters from colleagues and peers within the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. a senior research scientist at a 
governmental research agency in computer science and applied mathematics. Dr. states that he is familiar 
with the beneficiary through the beneficiary's research publications. Dr. states that the beneficiary's 
paper describes a new 
technique that generalizes translation validation. Dr. I asserts that this new technique "significantly 
improves upon the state-of-the-art in automatic compiler optimization validation" and provides an extension of 
the current system used for both once-and-for-all verification and translation validation. Dr. further states 
that the beneficiary's work on program equivalence opened "a novel and very promising approach" to elusive 
problems related to over loop transformations. Dr. asserts that he has cited and applied the beneficiary's 
work in two of his own publications, and that the beneficiary's work has "served as [a] building block for other 
researchers in academia and industry," particularly, for himself and three colleagues on software pipelining and 
value-graph translation validation. Dr. concludes: "Due to [the beneficiary's] high quality publications 
and their direct application to the development of electronic design automation, he is clearly an outstanding 
researchers [sic] among his peers in similar areas." However, Dr. fails to explain with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. While Dr. asserts that the 
beneficiary's publications have "direct application to the development of electronic design automation," Dr. 
fails to explain how the beneficiary's research is actually being applied in the field. Furthermore, while 
indicated that he cited the beneficiary's research in two of his own publications , Dr. failed to 
explain the nature of his citations to the beneficiary's work. Overall, Dr. letter contains primarily 
conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, and thus, bears little weight. 
, Professor at the 
states that he is familiar with the beneficiary through the 
beneficiary's research. publications. Dr. provides general background information on the beneficiary's 
research focus in the areas of implementation verification between high-level system descriptions and their 
lower-level implementations, and verification/ of concurrent software. Dr. then discusses the beneficiary's 
research findings and published articles. In particular, Dr. highlights the beneficiary's article ' 
, and asserts that the beneficiary 
made "a breakthrough that went beyond the translation validation paradigm ... [and] demonstrated how to 
also highlights the beneficiary ' s work in the area of verification of concurrent software, and assetts that the 
beneficiary and his collaborators "pioneered a breakthrough technique 
called which uses 
measured behavior of a system to focus the verification only on relevant possibilities (thereby greatly reducing 
the complexity of the verification task), yet also generalized from the measured behavior, so that the verification 
is far more powerful at discovering bugs than previous techniques." Dr. then states: "This line of research is 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
probably not ready for commercialization yet, but it is exactly the sort of deep, impactful, groundbreaking 
research that is needed to maintain technological leadership and progress for the future. Dr. concludes that 
the beneficiary's research "is clearly of the utmost relevance, and [the beneficiary] himself is clearly an 
outstanding researcher in his field." While Dr. provides a detailed explanation of the beneficiary's research 
focus and highlights the beneficiary's research findings, Dr. fails to explain with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. Further, Dr. assertion, that the 
beneficiary's research in the area of verification of concurrent software is "probably not ready for 
commercialization yet" but may impact future progress, is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's research 
has contributed to the academic field. Speculation as to potential future contributions cannot establish that the 
beneficiary has already made contributions to the academic field. Overall, Dr. letter contains primarily 
conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
states that he is familiar with 
the beneficiary through the beneficiary's research publications. Dr. provides a brief explanation of the 
area of formal verification of system-level designs, asserts that the beneficiary's research "focuses on the 
verification of these high-level designs and their refinements," asserts that research problems in this area "are 
extremely hard," and states that the beneficiary's "contribution to the field of formal verification is apparent 
from the quality of the forums in which his papers are published ." Dr. attests that he has cited the 
beneficiary's research article, and 
provides a brief description of the novel testing technique described in the article, which he asserts "is an 
important advancement to the EDA field because this technique exhaustively searches all execution paths for a 
given input, thereby increasing the coverage of a test in comparable runtime." Dr. concludes that the 
beneficiary "has significantly contributed to the research and development of EDA research," and that 
"[a]pplications of his work have the potential to improve many current state of the art systems." Dr. 
fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. 
Furthermore, while Dr. asserts that he has cited the beneficiary's research, he fails to explain the nature 
of his citation to the beneficiary's work. Finally, Dr. assertion that the beneficiary's research has "the 
potential to improve many current state of the art systems" is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's 
research has contributed to the academic field. Again, speculation as to potential future contributions cannot 
establish that the beneficiary has already made contributions to the academic field . Overall , Dr. 
letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, and thus, bears little 
weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
of the journal 
and Editor-in-Chief 
states that he 
became familiar with the beneficiary's work when he was looking for experts for an invited paper for 
and was referred to the beneficiary by Dr. · the beneficiary's doctoral advisor. Dr. 
states that the beneficiary's contribution to the area of high level verification "is internationally renowned" and 
that the beneficiary's research "presents a novel direction to hardware verification ... [that] can possibly lead to 
faster verification time and in tum reducing time to market for the integrated chip." Dr. lists the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
journals and conferences in which the beneficiary's research has been published. Dr. then states 
that, in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief of he invited the beneficiary to submit an invited paper for the 
journal, and that he was "extremely pleased for his contribution to the journal." Dr. concludes that 
he has no doubt that the beneficiary "will continue to make outstanding contributions to this research area." Dr. 
fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field 
as a whole. Further, Dr. statement that the beneficiary's research "can possibly lead to faster 
verification time and in turn reducing time to market for the integrated chip" indicates that the beneficiary's 
research may make potential future contributions; however, as stated above, speculation as to potential future 
contributions cannot establish that the beneficiary has already made contributions to the academic field. 
Overall, Dr. letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's 
contributions, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. Senior Research Staff Member, 
who was the beneficiary's supervisor at and has co-authored two 
patents and several papers with the beneficiary. Dr. explains the research he and the beneficiary worked 
on during the beneficiary's two internships at in 2007 and 2008, which formed the basis of their two patent 
applications and their several joint publications. Of the work they performed in 2007, Dr. states: 'This 
approach increased the coverage of a test input significantly in comparison to simulation techniques." Of the 
work they performed in 2008, Dr. states: "Our approach improves the current state of the art both in 
performance and in size of the verification condition." Dr. concludes that the beneficiary's research has 
"influenced research activities in the area of high-level verification research" and is "recognized 
internationally," as evidenced by the publication of the beneficiary's work in "the most prestigious international 
peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings in our field" and the "numerous citations'' to his published 
work. While Dr. describes his and the beneficiary's research findings in technical terms, Dr. fails 
to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. 
Overall, Dr. letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, 
andthus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. Professor and 
Dr. was the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor and has also co-authored several publications with the 
beneficiary. Dr. provides a brief description of the beneficiary's educational background. Dr. then 
discusses the beneficiary's current research findings. With respect to the beneficiary's work in the area of 
validation of high-level descriptions of system designs, Dr. asserts that the beneficiary "has contributed 
solutions both to the problems of equivalence checking as well as property verification," which Dr. 
characterizes as "some of the toughest technical problems with enormous practical impact." Of the 
beneficiary's other work with verification techniques, Dr. asserts that the beneficiary has provided 
"creative solutions that have a measureable impact on research practice and are demonstrably superior in 
practice." Dr. concludes that the beneficiary "has an established track record of making important 
contributions to both science and technology." While Dr. L describes his and the beneficiary's research 
findings in highly technical terms, Dr. fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
contributed to the academic field as a whole. Overall, Dr. letter contains primarily conclusory 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, and thus, bears little weight. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner provided additional reference letters, 
including a second letter from Dr. In this letter, Dr. provides additional details explaining how his 
and the beneficiary's joint research has reduced the runtime overhead without significant loss of precision, 
increased the coverage of a test input significantly in comparison to simulation techniques, and improves the 
current state-of-the-art both in performance and in size of the verification condition. Again, while Dr. 
describes the beneficiary's research in highly technical terms, his letter fails explain with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. Department Head, 
who first became acquainted with the beneficiary during the beneficiary's 2007 
internship at • and co-authored a paper with the beneficiary during this time. Dr. briefly describes the 
beneficiary's research areas and his research findings. In particular, Dr. characterizes the beneficiary's 
work in concurrent program verification as "innovative" and "more precise" than existing models. Dr. 
also characterizes the beneficiary's work in validating high-level synthesis (HLS) as an "extremely practical 
approach" that "improved the state-of-the-art of translation validation by handling concurrent programs." Dr. 
asserts that he is the of many leading journals 
and conferences in the area of EDA, and as such, is aware of the highly selective and strict process of choosing 
reviewers for the journals and conferences in which the beneficiary has served as a reviewer. Dr. asserts 
that he invited the beneficiary to review two papers based upon the beneficiary's "solid record" as an 
outstanding researcher whose publications have been "well received in the EDA community." Dr. 
concludes that the beneficiary "is an innovative researcher who has developed viable solutions for core 
problems in the EDA field" who will "continue to make excellent contributions to the area in the future." While 
Dr. describes the beneficiary's research findings in highly technical terms, his letter fails explain with 
specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. Overall, Dr. 
letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, and thus, bears little 
weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. : 
states that he is familiar with the 
beneficiary through the beneficiary's research publications and conference presentations . Dr. 
highlights that the beneficiary, for the first time, "generalized translation validation for concurrent programs and 
demonstrated that his approach is practical by integrating it with and 
"generalized this verification technique even further to work with parameterized programs." Dr. 
asserts that the beneficiary's research "explored and demonstrated new directions for demonstrating 
optimizations correctly once and for all." Dr. asserts that the beneficiary was the first researcher to 
present how to use static analysis techniques for partial-order reduction to improve the performance of the 
systematic search for flaws and bugs. Dr. asserts that the beneficiary developed another process to 
find bugs that may have been missed by existing simulation techniques. Dr. asserts that the 
beneficiary's research has been "beneficial" to his own research group as well as to the entire formal methods 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
community. Dr. concludes: "Overall, [the beneficiary's] research, including his doctoral thesis, has 
contributed significantly to advancement of high-level verification." While Dr. describes the 
beneficiary's research findings and emphasizes the novelty of his work, Dr. letter fails to explain 
with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. Furthermore, 
while Dr. asserts that the beneficiary's research has been "beneficial" to his own work, he does not 
explain in detail how the beneficiary's research has benefitted his own. Overall, Dr. letter contains 
primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions, and thus, bears little weight. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregard ed simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The 
Board also held, however: "We not only encourage , but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial 
and documentary evidence , where available." !d. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence . Matter of Y-B-, 21 
I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above . 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 reg(;lrding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have 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. /d. 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 conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's 
contributions , without specifically identifying the beneficiary's contributions and providing specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
Similarly, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner ' s burden 
of proof. 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. Meissn er, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.) . As such, the letters, alone, 
are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's research can be considered a contribution to the academic 
field as a whole, beyond his immediate circle of collaborators. 
As additional evidence of the beneficiary's purported contributions to the field , the petitioner submitted 
evidence that the beneficiary's work has been cited by other researchers. Specifically, the petitioner provided 
highlights from other researchers' publications, and provided copies of the publications that reference or cite 
to the beneficiary's research. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner highlighted two references made by Dr. in his Ph.D. thesis regarding the 
beneficiary's work, including one characterizing the beneficiary's work as "[t]he most advanced validator 
following The petitioner highlighted a reference made by 
Dr. stating that he follows the beneficiary's approach to express parameterized versions of 
programs. The petitioner highlighted references made by Dr. illustrating how he used and 
adapted benchmarks from the beneficiary's research, among more than 30 other research results, to 
experiment with their own approaches. The petitioner highlighted a reference made by Dr. 
regarding the beneficiary's work, specifically, that the beneficiary's approaches did not claim the minimality 
of the generated schedules, whereas Dr. approach does. The petitioner highlighted one 
reference made by Dr. to the beneficiary's work as "related work." The petitioner highlighted two 
references to the beneficiary's work made by Dr. and Dr. , which briefly discuss the 
beneficiary's read/write approach and explain why their own approach is novel and different from the 
beneficiary's approach. The petitioner highlighted one reference to the beneficiary's work made by Dr. et 
al., which states that the beneficiary's research on correctness of transformations provides "[o]ne possible 
solution" to check their own approach. The petitioner highlighted one reference to the beneficiary's work 
made by Dr. et. al., which not only states that the beneficiary's work is one of "several works" that 
model the whole computation logically to guarantee feasibility but have "too big an overhead to scale to large 
executions," and goes on to state that Dr. 's research team uses another approach that is "the most 
precise." The petitioner highlighted one reference made by Dr. et. al. to the beneficiary's work as 
"related work." The petitioner highlighted one reference made by Dr. et al. to the beneficiary's work 
on as introductory information. The petitioner highlighted one 
reference made by Dr. that briefly cites the beneficiary's work as advancing on generalizations of 
translation validation that validates classes of programs rather than single input-output pairs. The petitioner 
highlighted one reference made by Dr. et. al. that briefly cites the beneficiary's work as one of several 
works that address verification of the phase of scheduling . The petitioner highlighted one reference made by 
Dr. to the beneficiary's work, which stated that the beneficiary's system "managed to catch 
two bugs in the compilations, which were unknown before." The oetitione i2:blighted one brief 
reference made by Dr. : et. al. to the beneficiary's work with the . The petitioner 
highlighted one reference made by et. al. to the beneficiary's work as an authority for the following 
statement: "Since such considerations are entangled with low-level heuristics, it is easy to have errors in the 
synthesis tool implementation, resulting in buggy designs." Finally, in a different article, the petitioner 
highlighted one reference made by Dr. to the beneficiary's work as "related work," explaining the 
commonalities between translation validation and product constructions among the beneficiary' s and other 
researchers' works. 
While the petitioner has established that other researchers have cited the beneficiary's work in the above 
articles, none of the above articles explain how the beneficiary's work has contributed to the academic field. 
The fact that the beneficiary's work has been cited or briefly discussed in articles by other researcher s does 
not establish that the beneficiary has made a contribution to the academic field as a whole. Notably, none of 
the above articles discussed or cited the beneficiary's work in a substantial manner; instead, all of the articles 
merely cite to the beneficiary's work as one among many other research findings in the related topic, as 
introductory material, or as work upon which the author seeks to improve, indicating that the beneficiary's 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
work is part of a growing interest in that area of research. In light of the above, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary's research has contributed to the field as a whole. Thus, the petitioner failed 
to submit qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of several articles by the beneficiary published in scholariy journals with an 
international circulation, and evidence that the beneficiary's doctoral thesis has been published in book form. 
The AAO concurs with the director that this evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
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 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)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. 
2. 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. Here, the petitioner submitted letters from editors of journals or conferences attesting to their selection 
of the beneficiary as a reviewer or referee. Specifically, the letter from Associate Editor, 
(2005-2008), states that submissions to this journal 
"undergo a rigorous review process, with extremely selective criteria," and that the beneficiary was invited 
based on his "expertise in the field of electronic design automation." The letters from Dr. 
Associate Editor, state that 
the beneficiary was selected "based on his internationally recognized expertise" and that "ralcting as a reviewer 
is by no means routine for every researcher in the field." The letter from 
states that every submission "undergoes 
rigorous scrutiny by experts in the field." The letter from Dr. . general co-chair of: 
and member of the program committee 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
for asserts that "[s]election of an : reviewer is based mainly on the researcher's technical 
concentration area, research abilities and publication record in the related research fields," and that reviewers 
are "experts in the field ... [who] have published research that shows significance, correctness and originality; 
and have made important contributions to the literature." The letter from Dr. 1 , who worked with the 
beneficiary at states that in his capacity as associate editor, co-chair, and a program committee member of 
many leading journals and conferences in the area of EDA, he is "aware of the highly selective process of 
choosing reviewers to judge the work of their peers" and that "[f]or the journals and conferences that [the 
beneficiary has served as a reviewer, the criteria for being a reviewer are very strict." However, all of these 
letters make general, conclusory assertions regarding the selection criteria for peer reviewers. None of these 
letters provide any specific, factual information as to the actual selection criteria utilized to select the beneficiary 
as a reviewer. 
Without factual information to establish the actual selection criteria, along with 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, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, 
or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. Again, USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. I756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 
F. Supp. at 17. 
The AAO cannot ignore the fact that, generally, peer review is routine in the field, and not every peer 
reviewer enjoys international recognition. Furthermore, not every journal's peer review selection criteria are 
the same, and the selection criteria can vary greatly among journals. For instance, the background 
information for ndicates 
that this particular journal utilized at least 900 reviewers in 2010 alone. The sheer number of reviewers utilized 
for this particular journal in a single year, alone, is not indicative of a selection process that credits a small, elite 
group of reviewers. 
Furthermore, the record reflect s that the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor, Dr. } ___j serves as the Editor-
in-Chief of one of the journals in which the beneficiary has served as a 
reviewer. The record reflects that for the beneficiary was a sub-reviewer for his previous 
supervisor, Dr. The record also reflects that the beneficiary was invited to be a reviewer for -~-
by Dr. who worked with the beneficiary at ) Thus, the beneficiary's judging 
record is not entirely indicative of international recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. 
In addition, the beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence 1s 
indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators . See Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 
1122. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner highlights that the beneficiary's publications have been 
independently cited 
approximately 107 times. Counsel also highlights the evidence establishing that other 
researchers have "used and built upon" the beneficiary's research, asserting that this establishes that 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
"[i]nternationally recognized researchers from all over the world have agreed that [the beneficiary' s] work is 
original and path breaking ." 
However, the number of 107 citations appears moderate within the academic field; the petitioner submitted no 
objective, credible evidence to establish that this number of citations is high within the beneficiary's academic 
field. Moreover, as discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the nature of the citations and 
references to the beneficiary's work is substantial or significant. The petitioner submitted no evidence that the 
articles that cite to or reference the beneficiary's work substantively discuss or rely on the beneficiary's work; 
instead, the submitted articles merely reference the beneficiary;s work as one among many other research 
findings in the related topic. All of the articles submitted to support the petition briefly cite or reference the 
beneficiary's work as introductory material , related work, or work upon which the author seeks to improve. 
These letters fall significantly short of establishing that the other researchers have relied upon the 
beneficiary's work in a manner that recognizes the beneficiary's work as "original and path breaking," as the 
petitioner claims. 5 
In light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary ' s qualifying evidence fails to 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. 
IV. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher, who has won the respect of his 
collaborators, employers, and peers. 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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOti ende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 On appeal, counsel also highlights that the beneficiary's work has been downloaded over 550 times by 
researchers around the world. However, merely downloading an article does not carry as much weight as a 
citation to the article. One can view or download an article and realize it is not useful, whereas if an article is 
cited, it is used in some manner, even if only as background material.