dismissed EB-1B Case: Finance

PlJBl,TC COpy 
Date: MAY 0 1 201!>ffice: TEXAS 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 
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. § I I 53(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 1-290B, 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 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 is an institution of higher education/university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as 
an outstanding professor or 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 assistant professor of finance. 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 professor or researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. The petitioner has not submitted any further evidence on 
appeal.! For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the record fails to 
establish that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition as outstanding in the academic field. 
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? Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703,30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described III this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
I On appeal, the petitioner also submitted documentation regarding an international financial conference the 
beneficiary attended, as session chair and presenter, in November 2010. However, this conference took place after 
the date of filing this petition and cannot be considered evidence of the beneficiary'S eligibility after that date. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
2 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
(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. 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. 
(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. 
Page 4 
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.3 
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 
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.4 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 ifthe 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. DOJ, 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). 
3 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
4 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. 
Page 5 
III. Analysis 
A. EVidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on August 6, 2010, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a professor or 
researcher who is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. The petitioner 
has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was listed in Marquis Who's Who in Finance 
and Industry (2000-2001). 
The beneficiary's resume also lists the following awards: Being listed in Who's Who in the World; 
The Ross and Margie Butler Institute for International Understanding Award; The NASDAQ Stock 
Market Grant; The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Technical Cooperation Scholarship; 
Rockefeller Brothers Fund Fellowship; John C. Whitehead Foundation Scholarship; and, Fellow, 
The Salzburg Institute - Austria 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required 
evidence of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" has 
been removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized 
internationally as outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." 
(Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60897-01,60899 (Nov. 29, 1991.) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a 
major award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards 
cannot serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for a separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Regarding the beneficiary'S being listed in Marquis Who's Who in Finance and Industry (2000-
2001) and Who's Who in the World, having received two fellowships and an additional award, the 
petitioner has not submitted any evidence, such as selecting criteria, to demonstrate that such 
inclusion or selection was based upon outstanding achievement in the beneficiary's academic field. 
We therefore find that these awards do not constitute major awards. 
Regarding the beneficiary having received the NASDAQ Stock Market Grant, research grants 
simply fund the work of a scientist or professor. Every successful scientist or professor engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously 
Page 6 
the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding 
institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. A 
research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past 
achievement. 
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)(A). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which 
require outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a biographic page about the beneficiary, stating that the 
beneficiary is a member of the following organizations: Global Education Associates; New York 
Society of Security Analysts; Association for Investment Management and Research; American 
Finance Association; Financial Management Association International; and, European Financial 
Management Association. In addition, the beneficiary's resume also states that the beneficiary is a 
member of the following organizations: Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP); 
Chartered Financial Analysts (CFA) Institute; Eastern Finance Association; and, Southern Finance 
Association. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence confirming the beneficiary's membership in these 
organizations, or evidence that any of the above associations require anything other than the 
beneficiary having attained certain educational requirements, such as a degree, or the payment of 
dues for membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is a member of 
associations which require outstanding achievements of their members. 
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)(B). 
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 has submitted a citation record for the beneficiary, containing 32 total citations to the 
beneficiary's work, and copies of several articles containing citations to the beneficiary's work. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of published material about the 
beneficiary's work. A review reveals that the 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 her own circle of collaborators. 
See Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in our final merits 
determination. 
Page 7 
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)(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 
following publications: Journal of Economics and Business; The American Economist; and, The 
Financial Review. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed 
manuscripts for several international conferences. 
This evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F .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 has submitted two reference letters. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.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. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored several journal articles in the academic field 
and a book, and has presented his work at several international conferences, as is mentioned in the 
reference letters. 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. In 
addition, even if we considered the original nature of the beneficiary'S research to qualify it under 
the criterion at 8 C.F.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 and book under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
J.~"'.U~~"'''''''''' Polytechnic Institute in New York, states that 
research in 1997, when the beneficiary was nearing 
completion of his doctoral dissertation. he does not indicate how he learned of the 
beneficiary's work. He states that the beneficiary has made many unique and important 
contributions to the academic field of finance, particularly to the field of "real options" which 
term he states refers to the right to buy or sell non-financial assets. He states that the 
Page 8 
beneficiary's research "successfully linked the role of managerial compensation incentives to 
firm financing structures and efforts", and "can have a significant impact on 
how American business makes " 
professor of finance at 
She states that she first met co-
authored a journal article with the beneficiary, which was published in 2002. She states that the 
beneficiary's research determined that "the incentive for managers to bear risk is very important 
to leverage and research and development investment." She also states that the beneficiary's 
expertise "on real options and real growth options is helpful to others in the field." She states 
that the beneficiary's research on real options "leads to a better understanding of growth 
opportunities of start-up firms, research and development investments and firms with substantial 
intangible assets" and has many strategic implications for emerging and developing economies. 
Although discuss the potential applications for the beneficiary's 
research, they do not provide any examples of the beneficiary's innovations and how they are 
already being applied in the field, as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. 
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; uscrs 
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 
Page 9 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proofs 
Considering the letters in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's 
research is original or can be considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the AAO finds that 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 evidence that the beneficiary has authored several journal articles in the 
academic field and authored a book. The petitioner has also submitted evidence that the beneficiary 
has presented his work at several international conferences. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted letters expressing interest in the beneficiary's work as 
follows: requests dated in 1999 and 2000 from an adjunct professor in Texas and two students of 
economics, from Copenhagen and Portugal, respectively, for additional materials referenced in 
one of the beneficiary's articles; a request dated in 1999 from a finance professional in France 
for a copy of a paper presented by the beneficiary at a Paris conference; and, a request from a 
professor of business in Ukraine dated in 2002 for a copy of the beneficiary's book. All of this 
evidence will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
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 
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 
5 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, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conc1usory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General a/the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 10 
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. The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has 
reviewed manuscripts for Journal of Economics and Business, The American Economist and The 
Financial Review. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed 
manuscripts for several international conferences. The AAO cannot ignore the fact that financial 
journals are peer reviewed and rely on many financial analysts 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." 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on January 28,2010 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm. The handbook 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. This information reveals that original published research, whether arising from 
research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that 
researcher's field. 
Further, _ an independent reference, does not indicate that he learned of the 
beneficiary'S work through the beneficiary's international reputation. Indeed, the record lacks 
evidence that a significant number of members of the academic field outside of the beneficiary'S 
immediate circle of colleagues are even aware of his work. 
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, 
Page 11 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner has submitted several articles containing citations to the 
beneficiary's work. 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. The petitioner also submitted letters expressing interest 
in the beneficiary's work from several individuals. This moderate level of citation and letters of 
interest are not sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's published work has 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 ofthe regulatory criteria. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented professor of finance, 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. 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an 
outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(B) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
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. § 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.