dismissed EB-1B Case: Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 03 029 52593 Date: sfp 1 6 2005 
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. 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
! Administrative Appeals Office 
ii 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a company engaged in the development, manufacture and supply of process control instruments 
and systems. 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as a senior applications engineer. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic 
field, as required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits new reference letters, evidence that the beneficiary's patents have been 
referenced in other patent applications and complete copies of the beneficiary's patents. 
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 in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons hll-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be 
accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching andlor research in 
the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an advanced degree 
will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the teaching duties were such 
that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if the research conducted toward the 
degree has been recognized withn the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
andlor research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from former or current employer(s) 
and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on October 11, 2002 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field 
of engneering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must 
be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in 
the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy 
at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international 
recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of 
international recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 
56 Fed. Reg. 30703,30705 (1991). 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that the record contains no evidence relating to 
the first four criteria: documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A); documentation of the alien's membership in 
associations in the academic field which require outstanding achievements of their members pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B); published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's 
work in the academic field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C); and evidence of the alien's participation, 
either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work others in the same or allied field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). We concur with the director that the record contains no evidence relating to these criteria. 
The remaining two criteria will be discussed below. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic or scholarly research contributions to the academic$eld. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted several patents for the beneficiary's innovations, evidence that purportedly 
demonstrated citation of the beneficiary's work and reference letters from the beneficiary's immediate circle of 
colleagues. Noting the lack of evidence of frequent citation and letters from more independent references, the 
director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the beneficiary's influence in the field 
internationally. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petition was approvable as filed, but that evidence is being submitted to 
address the director's concerns. Specifically, the petitioner submits new reference letters, complete patents and 
evidence that the beneficiary's patents have been referenced in other patent applications. We will review all of 
the evidence of record below. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "origmal" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
Research work that is unorignal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's degree, let alone 
classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reason that the 
beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To argue that all orignal research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unorig~nal." 
In a similar vein, the evidence that the beneficiary holds several patents for his inventions establishes that he is a 
prolific inventor, but the very existence of the patents does not show that the beneficiary's inventions are more 
significant than those of others in his field.' To establish the significance of the beneficiary's work, we turn to 
experts in his field, whose letters we discuss below. , 
The beneficiary earned his engmeering degree at the East China University in 1982 and then worked at the 
Shanghai Radio 14 Factory until 1998. The beneficiary then obtained his Master's degree in engineering at the 
Tokyo Metropolitan University in 1993. Upon receiving his graduate degree, the beneficiary went to work for 
Tokyo Electron LTD (TEL). Ln 2001, the beneficiary began his employment with the petitioner. 
who met the beneficiary at the Shanghai Radio 14 Factory, asserts that the beneficiary 
participated in a joint program between the factor and Fudan University "to develop a high frequency MOSFET 
transistor." The beneficiary contributed to the success of the project by using "plasma sputtering and employing 
Mo as electrode." 
bf 
the beneficiary's thesis supervisor at the Tokyo Metropolitan University, asserts that the 
ene ~ciary studied the electrical property of hydrogen atoms in gallium arsenide (GaAs), a key material for --. - - 
high-speed electron Internet devices. The beneficiary "found that the hydrogen atom incorporated during 
plasma processing of GaAs acts as a donor state." The beneficiary presented this work at a 1992 symposium on 
the subject. 
The petitioner submitted two letters Erom senior managers at TEL,. The 
letters provide similar information about the beneficiary's work with semiconductor process technology and 
equipment design at TEL. Specifically, the beneficiary developed a cleaning process while worlung on the 
Reactive Ion Enhanced (RE) plasma Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) equipment project. In addition, the 
beneficiary developed a pulsed microwave and RF system for Electron Cyclotron Resonance (ECR) equipment. 
This system, controlled by a synchronized signal, was initially suggested to TEL as a project by the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and has not been duplicated outside of TEL. The beneficiary 
presented this work at a 1999 SEMICON conference in China and was responsible for the commercialization of 
the product by TEL. Subsequently, the beneficiary directed the research and development team for TEL's MSD 
project, inventing pioneering methods for treating "high k" materials, including using radicals from plasma. 
Addressing a lesser classification than the one sought in these proceedings, this office has stated that a patent is 
not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. 
See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Cornrn. 1998). Rather, the 
significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. 
Page 5 
Vice President and Chief Technical Officer for the petitioner, discusses the beneficiary's 
on "a number of critical projects." Specifically, the beneficiary worked on the 
SEMATECH program with a semiconductor chip company to develop a process recipe that resulted in a 30 
percent cost reduction in a semiconductor production tool. The beneficiary also "authored two invention 
disclosures" at the petitioning company "on novel semiconductor processing devices." 
Dr. Senior Director of the Advanced Technology Group at the petitioning company, adds that 
the SEMATECH program also aimed to reduce the emission of perfluorocompound (PFC ases im licated in 
global warming. The resulting process demonstrated reduced PFC emissions. Dr. - senior 
scientistleng~neering manager at the petitioning company, adds that the beneficiary's approach uses high-density 
plasma and carefully controlled gas chemistry to reduce PFC gas molecules to harmless products. 
President of Solid State Technology Japan (SST), explains that he established SST in 1978 
agreement with the U.S. publication of the same name. SST now introduces U.S. high-tech 
companies and semiconductor products to the Japanese market. ~r asserts that he has known the 
benefic~ary for 10 years, but does not explain how he became aware of the beneficiary's work. Mr- 
reiterates the information discussed above and asserts that the beneficiary's expertise and experience are rare. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits new letters. Counsel asserts that the opinions expressed in the new letters "are 
based upon the authors' review of the Beneficiary's publications, the patents held by the beneficiary and, and 
above all, on the authors' knowledge of the Beneficiary's reputation in the international scientific community." 
The authors themselves, however, do not claim to have become aware of the beneficiary's work through his 
international reputation. Moreover, while they may not be the beneficiary's collaborators, three out of the four 
reside in Massachusetts, the location of the petitioning company where the beneficiary works. The final letters 
is from a professor at Virginia Tech. Thus, these letters are not necessarily indicative of the beneficiary's 
reputation beyond the East Coast of the United States. We acknowledge the high level of the authors' 
credentials, although we note that their credentials dwarf the beneficiary's own. We will consider the content of 
these letters. 
professor at MIT and a member Fellow of the American Vacuum Society, indicates that 
he &.h as carefully reviewed the beneficiary's credentials and summarizes the beneficiary's employment history, 
already documented in the record. Dr. further discusses the beneficiary's discoveries and where they 
have been presented, but does not explain how these discoveries have changed the field. 
Dr. professor at Virginia Tech, Director of Power IT Lab and a fellow of the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Dr. that the beneficiary has a "renowned international 
reputation," having worked on critical semiconductor processes at TEL. Dr. murther asserts that the 
beneficiary's new plasma source, when released, "will play a crucial role in both the flat-panel display industry 
and in the reduction of PFC production within the semiconductor industry." 
Larry Bourget, Director of RTP Systems at Axcelis Technologies in Massachusetts, asserts that his letter. - 
requested by a colleague, is based on a review of the beneficiary's qualifications in comparison with the 
qualifications of those Mr- has hired. Mr.asserts that the beneficiary's presentations have 
garnered international attention but does not indicate that he personally knows of the beneficiary's work fi-om 
such a presentation. ~roncludes that the beneficiary's high-density plasma is an "elegant solution'' 
for PFC emissions "with industry-wide applications," but does not indicate that Axcelis, or any other company, 
is interested in licensing or otherwise applylng the technology. 
Dr. chairman and Chief Executive Office of NEXX Systems in Massachusetts, indicates that he is 
a fellow of the American Physical Society. Drndicates that he met the beneficiary while the beneficiary 
was worlung at TEL, but does not explain the circumstances. Dr.rovides similar information to that 
discussed above. 
The petitioner submitted Japanese and U.S. patents listing the beneficiary as one of the inventors. The petitioner 
also initially submitted what purports to be evidence of citations. The document, however, merely lists an 
article authored by the beneficiary and a patent for one of the beneficiary's innovations. These items are not 
evidence of the any interest in the beneficiary's work other than by the beneficiary himself. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that his patents have been cited as references in nine other patent 
applications other than his own. The petitioner did not submit the first page of these patents listing the inventors 
and the companies securing the property right.2 Thus, the petitioner has not established the significance of these 
citations. For examples references in other patent applications filed by TEL are poor evidence of the 
beneficiary's influence beyond his employer.3 Moreover, the record lacks evidence indicating that nine citations 
are significant in the field. We canndt ignore that semiconductor processing is a technical field subject to 
constant progression. Not every innovation that adds to the general pool of knowledge in the field can be 
considered to have garnered international recognition. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the engineering community. 
Similarly, any patent application, in order to be approved, must be original. The record, however, does not 
establish that the beneficiary's work has garnered international recognition as a contribution to the field as a 
whole. 
Even if we were to accept the citations of the beneficiary's patents as evidence that his innovations have 
influenced the field in a manner consistent with international recognition, the beneficiary would only meet 
one criterion. An alien must meet at least two in order to be eligible for the benefit sought. For the reasons 
discussed above and below, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets any other 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored two published articles and has presented his 
work at symposiums and conferences. The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral 
Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition 
2 The full patent application would not be useful as it would contain technical information beyond the 
expertise of this office. 
3 
While we are not bound to do so, we accessed the citing patents by number on the website run by the U.S. 
Patent and Trade Office, www.uspto.gov. That access revealed that of the nine patents citing the beneficiary, 
three were filed by TEL and the remaining six were filed by a total of four other companies. 
of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the appointee 
has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of 
the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even 
among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor research career." This report reinforces 
our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of international recognition; we 
must consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary's articles or presentations have been cited. We are 
cognizant that intellectual property concerns may legtimately limit an engineer's publication record. Thus, a 
limited publication record is not a negative factor for an engineer. That said, the petitioner must still establish 
that the beneficiary meets two criteria. While the beneficiary's limited publication record4 would not preclude 
eligbility if the beneficiary met two other criteria, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary's publication history, 
consisting of few publications and presentations and no citations, is indicative of or consistent with international 
recognition. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the respect of 
his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international exposure for his work. 
The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international reputation as an outstanding 
researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
4 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
We note that Dr. Sawin indicates that he has authored 175 published articles.