dismissed EB-1B Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2024 In Re: 29064390 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a chemical technology 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)(l)(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 ofChawathe, 25 I&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. 537, 537 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 the person is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, has at least three 
years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area, and seeks to enter the United States 
for a qualifying position with a university, an institution of higher education, or certain private 
employers. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petlt10ner 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); 
1 Academic field means a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or 
institution of higher education. 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 
Viswanadha v. Mayorkas, 660 F. Supp. 3d 759, 770-72 (N.D. Ind. 2023) (concluding that USCIS' 
two-step analysis is consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)); see also Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( describing the two-step process). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiarv received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from thel I 
1---------~-----____.lin July 2015 and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from 
--------=lin=F~eb=ruc.., ary 2020. He served as a postdoctoral researcher atl I 
~------~--___.I from December 2019 until April 2022. The Beneficiary has been 
employed as a modeling engineer with the Petitioner since April 2022. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In his decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary met at least 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. Upon review, we 
agree with the Director that the evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work 
of others and original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. 3 We also 
conclude that the Beneficiary meets the authorship of scholarly articles criterion.4 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, 5 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the academic field. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
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 USC1S Policy Manual F.3(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 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 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B). 
3 The Director's decision stated that the Beneficiary satisfied the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (E). 
4 Regarding the authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F), the Director's notice of intent to 
deny (NOTD) indicated that the Beneficiary had fulfilled that criterion, but the denial decision contradicted that 
determination by concluding that his published research did not meet the criterion. Because the Petitioner has presented 
evidence that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F), we withdraw the Director's finding 
in the denial decision on this issue. 
5 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 ofE-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 6 
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 published and presented work, citation count, letters of support, Chinese 
patents, and peer review service. 
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 requirements of specific evidentiary 
criteria, 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 was 
in keeping with the statute, regulations, and USCIS 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 emails indicating that he has peer reviewed six papers for I I, five papers for
I l and two papers for He also peer reviewed one 
a er each for 
7 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. 8 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. 9 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner submitted a letter of support from Dr. X-D-Z-, a technical 
editor fo ~--------------- stating: 
6 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activity, research contributions, three Chinese patents, published and presented 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. 
7 These counts do not include subsequent revisions of the same paper. 
8 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). 
9 For example, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that the specific journals that invited the Beneficiary to 
serve as a peer reviewer reserve their invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
academic field. 
3 
[The Beneficiary] has been invited multiple times to serve as a peer reviewer for our 
journal, given his specialized expertise in renewable energy and chemical conversion, 
with a focus on fuel cell, water and CO2 electrolysis technology. This is a very rare 
expertise and there are few scientists at the high level we need to review articles 
submitted td Ifor publication. 
Reviewing manuscripts for journals that select their reviewers based on subject matter expertise does 
not provide strong support for the petition, because possessing expertise in a given field is a 
considerably lower threshold than being recognized internationall)' within the academic field as 
outstanding. In addition, while the record includes information about.__ __________ ~ 
.___________ ____.listing its "Overall Rank/Ranking" as "3704," the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how providing peer review services for a journal with this ranking shows that the 
Beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 
In addition, Dr. C-B-, a professor a '-------------~ asserted that the Beneficiary's 
"international renown is illustrated b uent review of other scientists' work for hi h im act 
• ournals such as 
'----------~ ... [The Beneficiary's] service in this regard demonstrated that he is a 
leading figure in the electrochemical engineering field .... " While Dr. C-B- farther contended that 
"[p Jeer review positions are generally reserved for those individuals who have a long record of proven 
contributions to their chosen field of endeavor," he did not indicate his particular affiliation with the 
aforementioned journals or discuss their specific requirements for selection of peer reviewers. 
Likewise, in her letter of support, Dr. N-D-, Director for Cell Development at ._________ ___, 
stated: 
Due to his knowledge and expertise in this field, [the Beneficiary] has been re ularl 
invited to conduct eer review for authoritative • ournals in the field, includin 
etc. . . . Given that only the most highly esteemed researchers in the field are invited 
to evaluate the work of their peers, especially in notable venues like these, it is clear 
that [the Beneficiary] is seen as a very knowledgeable expert in the field. 
Dr. N-D- did not specify her affiliation with the aforementioned journals, list their specific ranking 
relative to other journals in the academic field, or provide each of their particular criteria for choosing 
peer reviewers. 
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. As discussed, the 
Petitioner did not present documentation indicating the aforementioned journals' specific 
requirements for selection of peer reviewers. Therefore, although the record shows that the 
Beneficiary has reviewed papers for multiple journals, 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 
4 
reviewer. Without this or other evidence differentiating him from others in his field, 10 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 
1discussing his graduate research at bot~ land his postdoctoral research atl l1 For 
example, regarding the Beneficiarys work at I Dr. L-Z-, an associate professor at I I
I and coauthor of the Beneficiary, asserted that their "patented 
technologies and inventions ... have had a significant impact on the advancement of renewable energy 
and chemical conversion technologies internationally." 12 He further claimed that their patents have 
had "an impact on the academic field as a whole," but he did not provide specific examples indicating 
that the Beneficiary's work has affected the field in a substantial way that signifies international 
recognition or outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
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 letter from Dr. L-Z- asserts that one of their patents was practically applied 
as a "prototype" by the~--------------~ but this information does not indicate 
in what ways their invention has advanced the state of research in the academic field or has affected 
the field beyond this single Chinese company. The Petitioner has not offered corroborating evidence 
showing that the Beneficiary and Dr. L-Z-' s patented inventions have had an impact that is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the field. 
Dr. 1-Z-, currently an associate professo~ Iindicated that she served 
at the Beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor at She stated that the Beneficiary's "work led to the 
development of new methods for measuring ionic conductivities, effectively increasing the 
performance of energy conversion devices." Dr. 1-Z- further asserted that the Beneficiary's "research 
has seen extensive citation and represents an important step forward in improving electrochemical 
devices, and ultimately helping to propel fuel cell technologies industrial application. For example, 
~K-] cited [the Beneficiary's] work in his 2021 paper for the 
L__J reprinting [the Beneficiary's] figure as an example of Nyquist plot fitting." Dr. 1-Z- 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 
aforementioned researcher who directly cited to the Beneficiary's 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. 
1 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
evidence that he has served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired prominent 
evaluation committees for reputable conferences. 
11 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
12 The Petitioner submitted evidence showing 
I 
that the Beneficiary and Dr. L-Z- coauthored three Chinese patents during 
the Beneficiary's graduate studies atl 
°
5 
In addition, Dr. A-W-, Senior Scientist au I, stated that the majority of the Beneficiary's "research 
has focused on the way in which water electrolyzers store renewable energy such as wind and solar 
into the chemical energy of hydrogen. Such research promotes water electrolyzer applications in 
industry, a renewable technology, to help reduce societal dependence on non-renewable fuel sources." 
While Dr. A-W- further noted that he and the Beneficiary coauthored five published journal articles 
that "provided key understandings on improving fuel cell performance," he did not offer specific 
examples of how the Beneficiary's findings have affected the renewable energy industry, have been 
widely utilized in the academic field, or have otherwise influenced his field at a level commensurate 
with being internationally recognized as outstanding. 
Furthermore, Dr. B-P-, Senior Research Fellow at the ~---------------~ indicated that he and the Beneficiary worked together on a project studying "proton-exchange-
membrane water electrolyzers." He explained that the Beneficiary "applied mathematical modeling 
to understand the various energy losses in the proton-exchange-membrane water electrolyzers. [The 
Beneficiary] computed energy loss breakdown analysis, providing crucial understanding of the 
limiting phenomena within the cell, creating avenues for optimization on future electrolyzer designs." 
Dr. B-P- further asserted that the Beneficiary "possesses deep technical expertise of highly complex 
knowledge of electrochemical devices," but the Petitioner has not shown that his work with proton­
exchange-membrane water electrolyzers 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. 
Likewise, Dr. W-M-, a professor of chemical engineering atl I 
noted that he became aware of the Beneficiary's work as "part of a consortium between._!_ ____.I" and 
his laboratory ate=] Dr. W-M- further stated: 
[The Beneficiary] presented his research at the
.____________ __. Meeting 
in 2020, where he was able to present his advances in the mathematical modeling of 
Anion Exchange Membrane Water Electrolyzers. These findings greatly improved our 
understanding of the functionality of the hydroxide liquid electrolyte in the cells .... 
[The Beneficiary's] mathematical modeling was so impressive in the field that he was 
extended an invitation to the 2022c=Jmeeting, in which he has been asked to provide 
a tutorial to the attending electrochemical community on his mathematical modeling of 
water electrolysis. 
While the Beneficiary has presented his findings at an D Meeting and been invited to provide a 
tutorial on his mathematical modeling, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this work has affected 
the field in a substantial way that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in the 
academic field. 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters are "expert testimony in support of the 
Beneficiary's stature as an outstanding researcher." The letters 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. 
6 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary's publication record shows that he is internationally 
recognized as outstanding. It states that he "has authored fifteen scholarly papers and has published 
his original research findings in highly-regarded scholarly journals and conference publications." A 
high journal 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 "highly­
regarded" journal or conference 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. 13 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile showing that 18 of his research 
articles had received 217 cumulative citations. This Google Scholar information also indicated that 
the Beneficiary's five highest cited articles, entitled! 
1(2021),I 
1(2019), I 
1(2020), I 
1(2018), andl 
I(2019) each received 33, 32, 25, 25, and 22 citations, respectively. The 
Beneficiary's remaining 13 articles each received 16 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. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted examples of some of the research articles which cited to the 
Beneficiary's work. For instance, an article authored by Dr. P-A-G-S- et al., entitled I 
t cites to a paper he coauthored with the Beneficiary and Dr. 1-Z-, entitled I~--~ 
~---------------------~I This self-citation by Dr. P-A-G-S­
references the paper he coauthored with Beneficiary as well as six of Dr. P-A-G-S-'s other articles, 
stating that "models with increasing level of complexity have been developed to gain insight into the 
effect of heterogeneities on cell performance (9-15)." Dr. P-A-G-S- article does not differentiate the 
Beneficiary's paper from the 30 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. 
13 See 6 USC1S 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). 
7 
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 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. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the Beneficiary participated as a 
I 
speaker in a "Life After Graduation" career 
I
panel hosted by the I I
but it does not explain how the Beneficiary's participation 
on a panel of recent Ph.D. graduates who offered "insight on post graduate life" signifies that he is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the fields of renewable energy and electrochemical 
engineering. The record also includes evidence showing that the Beneficiary presented his work at 
scientific meetin s and conferences s onsored b or anizations such as thd I 
The Petitioner did not, for example, 
provide evidence from the organizers that invited the Beneficiary to participate indicating that they 
reserve their invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
academic field. The Beneficiary's participation in the aforementioned scientific meetings and 
conferences 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. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled renewable energy and chemical 
conversion 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, including evidence of his published and presented research, 
citation record, peer review service, and Chinese patents, as well as the opinions of his colleagues 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 users has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude users from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form r-140 immigrant petitions are denied after users approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Sunlifi Int'! 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 users 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). 
8 
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. 
9