dismissed EB-1B Case: Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLICCOPY 
Date: MAR 2 0 2012ffice: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner manufactures and sells superabrasives. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as an application development engineer. The director determined that the petitioner 
had not established that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required 
for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
the AAO concurs with the director that the record fails to establish that the beneficiary enjoys 
international recognition. Specifically, when we simply "count" 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, 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, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). Further, the petitioner has not 
established that it employs the requisite three full-time researchers in addition to the beneficiary 
as required by section 203(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(C)(iii). 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 Enterprises, 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): 
* * * 
I The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described III 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, 
(II) 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 full-time in research activities and has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
II. Job OtTer 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. 
Page 4 
The petitioner has not submitted its job offer to the beneficiary. Instead, the petitioner submitted 
a letter from Beth Hemans, Director of Human Resources, addressed to U. S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) affirming the beneficiary's employment. Black's Law Dictionary 
1189 (9th ed. 2009) defines "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" and defines "offeree" as "[0 ]ne to whom an offer is made." In 
addition, Black's Law Dictionary defines "offeror" as "[o]ne who makes an offer." Id. at 1190. 
In light of the above, the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the offeree, not a 
third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made "to the beneficiary" 
would simply be redundant. Thus, the letter from _ addressed to USCIS affirming the 
beneficiary's employment is not an offer of employment within the ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The record does not contain an offer of employment from ~er addressed to the 
beneficiary. While the AAO does not question the credibility of_ the petitioner has not 
explained why the AAO should accept assertions of the terms of the offer of 
employment in lieu of the offer of employment itself, which is required initial evidence pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it employs the requisite three full-time 
researchers. Counsel asserts that the petitioner employs three full-time researchers in addition to 
the beneficiary: 
In response to a request 
e individuals, and general descriptions of 
the positions of senior development engineer, development engineer and development and 
testing support engineer. We reiterate that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) states 
that the petitioner must "demonstrate" that it employs at least three full-time researchers. Thus, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish this element of eligibility; USCIS is not required to infer 
the number of researchers, either based on their W-2 forms or 'ob . 'ons for their 
job titles. At issue are the job duties, not the job titles, of and _ 
Since the petitioner has not submitted descriptions 0 ner has not 
established that it employs the necessary number of full-time researchers such that it is a qualifying 
petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. International Recognition 
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 
internationally 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. 
Page 5 
(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)(1)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 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 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." Id. 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)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court 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), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) 
and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
Page 6 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.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)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. 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. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.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), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
IV. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria4 
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 
The petitioner submitted several citations to the beneficiary's work, although the petitioner has not 
attached the articles themselves. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of 
published material about the beneficiary's work. The AAO reads "published material" to mean the 
published material itself, not a mere citation record. In addition, published material which cites the 
beneficiary's work is primarily about the author's own work, or recent work in the field generally, 
and not about the beneficiary's work. As such, it cannot be considered published material about the 
beneficiary's work. However, the beneficiary's citation history 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 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in 
our final merits determination. 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under three 
criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(1)(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. 
Page 7 
The petitioner also submitted several published articles that briefly discuss the beneficiary's work 
and that of his colleagues at Penn State University.5 The plain language of the regulation at 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires that the published material shall include the title, date, and 
author of the material. However, these articles are university press releases that do not include the 
author of the material, as acknowledged by counsel on appeal. 
As the published material submitted by the petitioner does not include the author of the material, 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth 
at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
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 for the 
International Journal of Refractory Metals & Hard Materials (IJRMHM), Powder Technology 
Journal, and the journal Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A. This evidence qualifies 
under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Pursuant to the 
reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the nature of these duties may be and will be 
considered below in our final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary'S original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted the following: a patent application filed by the petitioner in 
which the beneficiary is listed as a co-inventor; documents from the International Journal of 
Refractory Metals and Hard Materials listing two of the applicant's articles as being among the 
publication's most downloaded articles for 2006 and 2007; and, eight reference letters (five from the 
beneficiary'S immediate circle of coauthors and collaborators). The plain language of the regulation 
at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary'S contributions themselves be 
internationally recognized as outstanding. That being said, the plain language of the regulation does 
not simply require original research, but an original "research contribution." Had the regulation 
contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have 
included the extra word "contribution." Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires that 
the contribution be "to the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory or institution. 
This office has previously 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, (Comm'r. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation 
5 One of the articles submitted by the petitioner is a foreign language article without an accompanying translation. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3) requires the submission of complete certified English language translations for all 
foreign language documents. Thus, we will not consider the foreign language article. 
Page 8 
must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. While the patent application states that the rights 
to the patent have been assigned to the petitioner, the petitioner does not indicate that it has licensed 
or marketed the beneficiary's patent-pending innovation, but merely states that it, "plans to use this 
patent in its future production of innovative products." Thus, the impact of the innovation is not 
documented in the record. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored articles. Even if we considered the original 
nature of the beneficiary's research to qualify it under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), 
and we do not, whether or not the contributions are indicative of the beneficiary's international 
recognition in the field is a valid consideration under our final merits determination. (We will 
consider the articles under 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(P)). However, evidence that two of the 
beneficiary's articles were among the most downloaded articles for 2006 and 2007 in the 
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials, without other evidence, does not 
demonstrate that this original research is considered a contribution to the academic field. 
Downloads of the beneficiary's articles carry less weight than citations. One could download the 
article and realize it isn't useful; if one has cited the article, one has used it, at least as 
background. 
states that he met the beneficiary in 2002, when he worked with him during 
the beneficiary's Master's degree research at Penn State University. He states that the beneficiary 
developed the first powder injection molding process for niobium, which he states is an important 
and groundbreaking contribution to the field of powder metallurgy and injection molding. .. 
~oes not explain how this work has impacted the field. He also states that the beneficiary's 
work on decomposition curves for binders in injection molding is an important contribution to the 
field, which he states has been applied successfully in both academic research and the industry 
practice. does not provide examples of independent research institutions using the 
beneficiary's technique or assert that the beneficiary's technique is becoming one of the "widely 
accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. He 
states that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles. The regulations, however, include a 
separate criterion for scholarly articles at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(P). If the regulations are to be 
interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate 
evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. 
states that he met the beneficiary in 2005, when he worked with him during the 
beneficiary's Ph.D. research at Penn State University. He states that the beneficiary'S "exceptional 
knowledge in the field of powders and particulate materials processing ... was instrumental in the 
development of optimum feedstock for self . . for . 
which led to the "successful culmination of a 
project." _ does not provide any examples of how the beneficiary's innovations are already 
being applied in the field. He states that the beneficiary's approach "for modeling composite 
coatings deposition using cold spray set a new paradigm in coatings science. It provided an 
inexpensive gatewiiito the otherwise complex and computationally expensive impact-contact 
modeling." While discusses the potential applications for the beneficiary'S research, he t 
Page 9 
does not suggest it is in use. He notes that the beneficiary published his work but he does not 
explain how it has impacted the field. 
states that he met the beneficiary at the International Conference of Powder 
Metallurgy and Particulate Materials, where the beneficiary presented his work on powder 
injection molding of pure niobium. He asserts that the beneficiary's research, "has made critical 
contributions to the field of powder injection molding and powder of processing of refractory and 
hard metals." He states that some of the numerical models developed by the beneficiary and his 
colleague, "have been applied successfully to both academic research and in the powder metallurgy 
industry with tools for predicting~ and debinding processes that helps designing their 
optimum processing conditions." __ does not provide examples of independent research 
institutions using the beneficiary's technique or examples of that the beneficiary's innovations are 
already being applied in the field. 
........ "." . became a 
member of the board for the and _ 
_ of He states that the beneficiary has 
~ng research in the field in powder metallurgy, specifically in near-net shaping 
of refractory and hard metals" and that the beneficiary's "work on powder injection molding of pure 
niobium gave him international recognition and have contributed to the field of refractory 
metals and powder injection molding." However, does not . any examples of how 
the beneficiary's work is already being applied in the field. states that the applicant's 
published articles in URMHM were part of 25 most downloaded articles in years 2006 and 2007, 
respectively, and that URMHM receives approximately 50,000 requests for full-text articles per 
year. However, at stated above, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from 
scholarly articles. 
was the beneficiary's Master's degree and Ph.D. advisor at Penn State University. He 
states that the beneficiary's Master's work yielded a novel process to inject mold pure niobium 
powder into intricate shapes, and that his work in powder feedstock formulation was instrumental in 
meeting a very imp~ of wear-resistant coatings. He does not explain how this work has 
impacted the field. __ states that the beneficiary's Ph.D. work involved developing self­
lubricating coatings for jet engines. He does not explain how this work has impacted the field. 
While_ asserts that the beneficiary's development of the powder injection molding process 
for pure niobium is superior to "the established processes of die-compaction and machining . . . 
providing a competitive advantage for U.S. industries, "_ does not provide examples of 
independent research institutions using the beneficiary'S technique or assert that the beneficiary's 
technique is becoming one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a 
contribution to the field as a whole. He states that the beneficiary's research, "opened avenues for 
injection-molded niobium parts covering a wide range from rocket-nozzles, wires, human bone 
replacements to orthodontic braces." While _discusses the potential applications for the 
beneficiary'S research he does not suggest it is in use. _ also states that the beneficiary'S 
Page 10 
research on a particular mathematical model, "provided a tool to conveniently change binder 
formulations with or without the metal powder and to calculate the decomposition temperature, hold 
time, and the heating rate for the debinding process in powder injection molding." Once again, _ 
_ does not provide any examples of independent institutions using the beneficiary's system. 
states that he has known the applicant since 2002, when he was his colleague at 
Penn mverslty. _ states that the beneficiary's work on powder injection molding of 
niobium was the first effort to mold pure niobium, and has set a new paradigm in the field of 
powder metallurgy. He does not provide examples of independent research institutions using the 
beneficiary'S technique, or assert that the beneficiary's technique is becoming one of the "widely 
accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. He 
also states that the numerical models which he and the beneficiary developed in collaboration, the 
Master Sintering Curve and the Master Decomposition Curve, have been applied in academia and 
industry, providing industry with tools to predict sintering and debinding processes. _ 
discusses the potential applications for the beneficiary's research but does not provide any examples 
of independent institutions using the beneficiary's system. _ also states that the beneficiary 
has authored scholarly articles, but he does not explain how they have impacted the field . 
•••••••••• states that he has known the beneficiary from Penn State University. He 
states that the beneficiary's work on powder injection molding of pure niobium, and "his novel 
approach to develop an optimum powder feedstock based on its rheological behavior and simulation 
is an exceptional contribution to the injection molding science. This can provide huge savings in 
raw materials costs ... " also states that the beneficiary "developed and evaluated a 
master decomposition curve for niobmm, which can help in optimizing binder composition without 
additional experiments ... leading the path to new developments." He asserts that the beneficiary's 
research "could open the doors to injection molded niobium parts ranging from rocket nozzles to 
human bone replacements to orthodontic braces.,,6 _discusses the potential applications 
for the beneficiary's research but does not provide any examples of independent institutions using 
the beneficiary's system . 
•••••• states that, while he has not met the beneficiary, he has been "referring and using 
his seminal work on powder injection molding in my research." _ does not provide any 
examples of how he has used the beneficiary's research in his own research. He also states that the 
beneficiary's research identifying a process window to successfully injection mold pure niobium, 
"has opened numerous opportunities for the powder metallurgy research groups around the globe." 
_oes not discuss the potential applications and benefits of the beneficiary's research. He 
states that the beneficiary's development of a master decomposition curve is a tool that "helps in 
building in the quality during the process." While _ suggests the potential benefits of the 
beneficiary's research he does not suggest that the beneficiary's technique is becoming one of the 
"widely accepted standard techniques", as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a 
whole. 
used very similar language to_ The beneficiary's research "could open the doors to injection 
molded niobium parts ranging from rocket nozzles ... to orthodontic braces." 
Page 11 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
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." Id. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (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 regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as the AAO has 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. Id. 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 bare assertions of widespread recognition and 
vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of prooe 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
beneficiary'S research, while original, can be considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted 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 several articles authored by the beneficiary. Thus, the petitioner has 
submitted evidence that qualifies under 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 
7 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. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, uscrs need not accept primarily 
conclusoryassertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General a/the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 12 
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, however, 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)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 
B. 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. Counsel asserts that the journals have assigned manuscripts to the 
applicant for his review based upon, "his international reputation for excellence in his field." The 
beneficiary reviewed four manuscripts for the international journal Metallurgical and Material 
Transactions and one article for Powder Technology Journal. The beneficiary also reviewed ten 
articles as a credited member of the editorial board listed in the International Journal of Refractory 
Metals and Hard Materials (IJRMHM). The fact that the applicant is a credited member of the 
editorial board of the IJRMHM, while notable, is not by itself indicative of international 
recognition as outstanding. The AAO cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed 
and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the 
field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. without other 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, or received independent requests from a 
substantial number of journals, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's judging 
experience is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
Regarding the beneficiary'S original research, as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level 
of a contribution to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was 
"original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure 
the beneficiary a Master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. To argue that 
all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful 
meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
While the beneficiary has published articles, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (OOH) provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher 
-Page 13 
(professor) and the requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm (accessed 
June 23, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceeding). The OOH expressly states that 
faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 
research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for 
faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. 
The beneficiary's citation history 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. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary'S articles have been widely 
cited or other comparable evidence that demonstrates that the beneficiary'S publication record is 
consistent with international recognition. 
In light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary'S qualifying 
evidence, participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not 
garnered widespread citations or other response in the academic field, does not 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. Indeed, with the 
exception of a small number of citations, the record lacks evidence that members of the academic 
field outside of the beneficiary'S immediate circle of colleagues are even aware of his work. 
C. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented metallurgical engineer, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of exposure for 
his work. 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 petition will be denied for the above-stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 136l. 
Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.