dismissed EB-1B Case: Engineering

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
or.*rtC U.S. Citizenship 
@ and Immigration 
$G,, S& Services 0 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: F EB 0 1 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
/A 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have beep re&ed to 
decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office., 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of analog and digital audio coding technologies. It 
seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Immgration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as a research staff engineer. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the significance of the beneficiary's research, or that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
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, 
(JI) for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(IU) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
The 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 worlung 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 former or current employer(s) 
- Page 3 
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 January 2 1,2003 to classify the beneficie as an outstanding researcher in the field of 
engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must kstablish that the beneficiary had at least three years of research 
experience in the field of engineering as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally within the field of engineering 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 "[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. The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following 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 academicfield 
The director concluded that the beneficiary meets ths criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientiJic or scholarly research contributions to the academic field 
The beneficiary obtained his Ph.D. in 1996 &om the University of Freiburg, Germany, including two years as a 
visiting student at Shandong university. The beneficiary continued to perform research at the University of 
Freiburg for a year postdoctoral before moving to Siemens AG in Munich, Germany. In December 2000, the 
beneficiary began working for the Tellabs Research Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Finally, in August 
2002, the beneficiary began working for the petitioner. 
Dr. he beneficiary's Ph.D. supervisor at the University of Freiburg, asserts that the beneficiary is 
"playing a key role in applying principles of,.palytic methods in mathematics to communications systems." 
More specifically, the beneficiary "was the first ever to establish an upper bound for the corresponding 
exceptional set in short intervals." The beneficiary then applied this work to other problems including "(1) the 
representability of natural numbers as sums of five almost equal prime squares; (2) a Goldbach-Waring type 
result; and (3) a variant of the famous Goldbach conjecture for arithmetic progressions." 
the beneficiary's former fellow Ph.D. student at Shandong University and coauthor, asserts that 
work "is well-regarded by the international research c~mmunity.'~ rovides similar 
information to that provided by ~r murther asserts that he and a 
argument developed by [the beneficiary] of the exceptional set of four prime squares." As a 
result of applying their collaborative work, mproved previous estimates sig$iicantly. 
Dr. former Director of Research at Tellabs Operations, Inc. and a professor at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), discusses the beneficiary's work with Micro-Electro-Mechanical 
Systems (MEMS). explains that this system "is the integration of rnechanical elements, sensors, 
1 
This decision will only discuss those criteria claimed by the petitioner or for which relevant evidence was 
submitted. 
- Page 4 
actuators, and electronics on a common silicon substrate through microfabrication technology." MEMS is 
revolutionary in that it has the potential to bring together silicon-based microelectronics with micromachining 
technology leading to "complete systems-on-a-chip." 
The most complicated devices of communication networks are the switches. According to Dr prior to 
the beneficiary's work with MEMS, "due to long switching times and delays associated with h t em, MEMS- 
based switches have not been considered for optical packet switches." The beneficiary, however, "developed an 
innovative theoretical performance analysis, and led a large scale simulation project for which a software 
engineer was temporarily hired and supervised by [the beneficiary]." As a result, the beneficiary "was the first 
in the field to be able to give exact performance data for MEMS based parallel switches." 
"detailed recommendations of the feasibility of MEMS based switches for specific comrnercia applications 
throughout the industry" are now possible. As an example, 
lhat 
that ''related research" was 
performed at Stanford University and was presented at the Infocom conference. 
In a second letter, -tates: 
[The beneficiary] was the first to devise a policy that can be implemented in a distributed 
manner, but has the great advantage of low complexity. His work is the first to not only 
provide a new theoretical foundation for network routing, but is of tremendous practical usage. 
[The beneficiary's] groundbreaking idea is based on a new way to understand the inner 
structure of the implemented policy. In particular, he showed that the class of maximal 
matching algorithms lends itself to specific, formerly unknown algebraic description. Only this 
description allows [the beneficiary] to derive his pioneering results on the stability of networks 
of routing devices that implement practical policies based on maximal matching algorithms. 
Regarding the beneficiary's contributions to wireless technology, Dr-fiu-ther states that the beneficiary 
"brought new insight into the coordination of internet and radio technology which is fundamental for the 
successful research in future. wireless networks." 
a senior research scientist at Telcordia Technologies, asserts that the beneficiary made 
to the Mobile Wireless Internet Forum (MWIF). Suecificallv, the beneficiary's -. 
contributions "have significantly influenced the specifications of the Mobile Wireless Internet, and have since 
been incorporated in official standards specifying the network architectures of future wireless networks." 
hese standards "are now being followed by major telecommunications companies that 
networks worldwide." ef Architect for the Java 
Technology for Service Providers Group at Sun Microsystems, Inc., asserts that he represented Sun 
Microsystems at the MWIF standardization meetings and is aware of the beneficiary's contributions to that 
forum. Specifically, Mr. asserts that the beneficiary "took a leading role in the development of 
reference architectures for future network architectures that have since become official documents of the Mobile 
Wireless Internet Forum." 
Neither Drp ~r.ndicates how many individuals participated in the forum and the petitioner 
does not su rmt evidence, such as media coverage, reflecting the significance of the forum to the industry. The 
record lacks the final standards formulated by the forum. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is credited with an influence on these standards. Moreover, the letters fiom Dr-d Mr. 
Arango were submitted in response to the director's request for additional documentation and are dated after the 
date of filing. Neither letter indicates when the beneficiary workqd with the MWIF; thus, the record does not 
establish that this participation occurred prior to the date of filing. The petitioner must establish the 
beneficiary's eligbility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg. Comrn. 1971). 
a former research engineer at the Tellabs Research Center, discusses the beneficiary's work 
Label Switchng Technology (MPLS). Drlains that MPLS networks are 
expected to be used on top of existing networks and, thus, require multilayer protection. The beneficiary 
invented techniques to coordinate the recovery techniques of multiple layers, allowin recovery at different 
layers and the distribution of restoration decisions throughout the network. Dr. .%asserts that Tellabs 
adapted this work for a new product line for Internet based Virtual Private Networks, significantly increasing 
"the complexity and scope of rmearch at Tellabs." 
Dr.resident of Metanoia and a co-developer of MPLS signaling and routing standards, asserts 
that the beneficiary's development of low-complexity algorithms that can guarantee the stability of the switch is 
a remarkable contribution. 
h.another engineer at Tellabs Operations, Inc., provides similar information and also discusses the 
beneficiary's work with Optical Burst Switching (OBS), which promises advantages over other switching 
techniques. Specifically, the beneficiary proposed a novel architecture for OBS, demonstrating a quality of 
service not supported by previous OBS models. 
The only letter to reference a patent is from Dr.ormer Chief Technical Officer for Tellabs 
Operations, Inc. ,Dr.-sserts that he and the beneficiary collaborated on a packet voice gateway project 
that resulted in a non-provisional patent application. The petitioner did not provide the patent application listing 
the beneficiary as an in~entor.~ 
a member of the technical staff at MIT who collaborated with the beneficiary on virtual 
that a recent groundbreaking theorem by a professor of the University of Michigan 
could not have been derived without the beneficiary's earlier work. 
the petitioner submits another independent reference letter from Dr. While Dr. 
ever collaborated with the beneficiary, he received his Ph.D. from Shandong University, where the 
beneficiary also studied. Dr. eviews several articles that have cited the beneficiary's work. The field 
of engineering is constantly evolving, with new innovations building on past theoretical work. As 
will be.discussed below, we do not find that the beneficiary's minimal citation history, some of which are self- 
cites by a coauthor, is indicative of international recognition. 
In addition, the petitioner submits a letter from a principle staff engineer with the petitioning entity attesting to 
recent accomplishments by the beneficiary. Similarly, the petitioner submits recent conference presentations, 
invitations, and publications. This evidence does not relate to the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. 
2 
A search of the United States Patent and Trade Office's website, www.uspto.gov, reveals a "packet voice 
gateway" patent application filed by Tellabs on November 27, 2001. The beneficiary is not listed as an 
inventor. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
Research work that is unorignal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a 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 outstandins researcher, it stands to reason that the beneficiary's research 
contributions have won comparable recognition. To argue that all original research is, by definition, 
"outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any usehl meaning, and to presume that most research is 
"unorignal." 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any engineering research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the engineering 
community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or 
funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. As will be discussed below, the 
record lacks evidence that the beneficiary's algorithms have been widely cited beyond his collaborators. 
Moreover, the record also lacks evidence that the beneficiary's innovations have been patented and have 
generated significant interest internationally. Finally, the record lacks letters from independent engineers 
applying the beneficiary's algorithms in their own work or professors who have incorporated the 
beneficiary's work into their course materials. Thus, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's work 
has garnered international recognition as a groundbreaking advance in his field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly boob or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academicfield 
Initially, the petitioner submitted 10 published articles authored by the beneficiary. In response to the director's 
request for evidence that the journals are circulated internationally, the petitioner submitted evidence that IEEE 
Communications Magazine, Acta Mathematica Sinica and Archiv der Mathematik all have broad international 
editorial boards. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the Journal of Number Theory serves as an 
"international forum for the publication of original research." Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that 
Lecture Notes in Computer Science has an international editorial board and publishes conference proceedings 
from international conferences. 
Of these journals, the beneficiary has published in the Journal of Number Theo y, Acta Mathematica Sinica and 
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary published more than one article in an internationally distributed journal, the Journal of Number 
Theory. On appeal, counsel asserts that, as of the date of appeal, the beneficiary has published 19 articles, all in 
journals with an international circulation. The petitioner submits all 19 articles, nine of which were published 
after the date of filing and cannot be considered evidence of the beneficiary's eligbility as of that date. See 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence t he Journal of Number Theory, 
Acta Arithmetica, Acta Mathematica Sinica, Archzv der Mathematik, Studia Scientiarum Mathematicarum 
Hungarica, The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics and Computer Perj4ormance Evaluation are all 
available at university libraries around the world. The petitioner has now established that, as of the date of 
filing, the beneficiary had published articles in seven journals with international distribution and had presented 
his work at two international conferences. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, sets forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. 
Among the factors included in thts definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 
expected, to publish the results of hs 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 and/or research career." This report reinforces Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of 
international recognition; we must consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits several articles that cite the beneficiary's work. Two of those articles are from 
the beneficiary's former collaborators who do not cite specific work by the beneficiary but simply acknowledge 
the beneficiary for his advice in the preparation of the article. The beneficiary's article in the Journal of 
Number Theory, with eight citations, is the only one of the beneficiary's articles to receive more than a single 
citation. Two of those citations, however, appeared after the date of filing. More significantly, six of those 
citations are self-cites by one of the beneficiary's coauthors on that article. While self-citations are normal and 
expected, they cannot demonstrate that the beneficiary is recognized beyond his immediate circle of 
collaborators. Two independent citations are not indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
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 thes_e proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.