dismissed EB-1B Case: Finance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
Date: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 1 ,. 2012 
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. § 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, 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.
1 
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 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 --
1 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
(1) 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. 
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. 
USC/S, 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 
Page 4 
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 CF.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 CF.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? 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 CF.R. 
103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 20(4); 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). 
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.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». 
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. 
Page 5 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 4 
This petition, filed on May 24, 2011, 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). 
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 6 total citations to the 
beneficiary's work.s 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 his own circle of 
collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in 
our final merits determination. 
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: 
of Business in Developing Nations. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary 
has reviewed manuscripts for several international conferences. 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
5 The petitioner has also submitted a copy of a press release, published in the June 19, 20lledition of the Natchez 
Democrat, concerning the beneficiary's manuscript "Approaching the Asian elephant: Understanding business-to­
business relationships in India." However, publication of this article occurred after the date of filing the employment­
based immigrant visa petition on May 24, 2011, 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). 
Page 6 
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 reference letters from nine individuals, (six of whom are 
from the beneficiary's immediate circle of coauthors and collaborators). 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 has presented his work at several international conferences and symposia, 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 under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
Interim Dean at the petitioner's school of business where the beneficiary is an 
assistant professor of finance, states that the beneficiary's research has important implications "in 
determining whether the biotechnology sector, domestic or foreign, provides risk diversification 
benefits." He states that the beneficiary'S research "provides evidence that new and emerging 
sector's financial performance can be affected by dominance of country specific factors." He also 
states that the beneficiary's research findings have important practical implications, showing that 
the transmission of global economic shocks "are not symmetric and that downturns should be 
scrutinized even more heavily than upturns" by policymakers and investors with internationally 
diversified portfolios. fails to acknowledge that he is one of the beneficiary'S 
coauthors. He does not explain how others in the field are applying the beneficiary'S research 
findings. 
professor of economics and finance at The University of New Orleans, states 
that he is familiar with the beneficiary's research, although he does not indicate how he learned of 
the beneficiary'S work. He states that the beneficiary'S research contributions include presenting 
evidence of a relation between mortgage finance companies and real estate investment trusts, and 
presenting evidence that "markets which exhibit R&D maturity, intellectual property right law 
Page 7 
protection and have developed capital infrastructure are less likely to misprice their biotechnology 
sector.'_ does not explain how others in the field are applying the beneficiary's research 
results. 
professor of finance at The University of Texas - Pan American, states that 
took several of his classes when the beneficiary was a doctoral student at The 
University of Texas - Pan American. He states that the beneficiary "is on his way to making a 
name for himself in [the] research community in modeling return performance, and understanding 
dynamic linkages and contemporaneous risk assessment." He states that the beneficiary'S work "is 
beginning to have an impact in areas such as asset pricing and international financial market 
performance," although he does not give any examples of independent institutions of higher 
educatiOn/universities using the beneficiary's work. 
is a professor of finance at Philadelphia University in Pennsylvania. He 
states aware of the beneficiary's work when he read the beneficiary'S paper 
on currency hedging strategies and interest rate arbitrage. He states that the beneficiary "has 
continuously argued that regional business conditions matter." He states that the beneficiary'S 
research findings, implying that profitable arbitrage opportunities seem to exist in the currency 
markets of Brazil, Russia India and China, are important information for practitioners and 
academics interested in international currency markets. He also states that the beneficiary'S 
research findings, regarding the financial markets of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 
are important information for investors and academicians. does not explain how 
others in the field are applying the beneficiary's research findings. 
associate professor of finance at University of Houston - Downtown, does not 
of the beneficiary'S work. _fails to acknowledge that he is one of 
the beneficiary's coauthors. Thus, _ is not an independent reference. He states that the 
beneficiary's research findings h~d managerial implications for practitioners and 
academicians who are trying to understand the role of risk especially in context of international 
investment and portfolio perfonnance." ~oes not explain how others in the field are 
applying the beneficiary'S research resultl.-
_professor of business at states that 
~he beneficiary'S work a paper at an Academy 
of International Business seminar in 2005. fails to acknowledge that he is one of the 
beneficiary'S coauthors. reference. He states that the 
beneficiary "is known for his performance, and understanding dynamic 
linkages and contemporaneous risk assessment. He states that the beneficiary'S research findings 
have important implications for policy makers, investors, practitioners and academicians, although 
he does not provide examples of how the beneficiary's findings are being applied in the field. 
6 Drs. Spillan, Hassan and Soydemir use this almost identical language in their letters of reference. 
Page 8 
a research professor of economics and finance at University of Texas - Pan 
American, states that he has known the beneficiary for 10 years, but he does not indicate how he 
learned of the beneficiary's work. He states that the "beneficiary'S research interests lie in the area 
of understanding asset pricing and contemporaneous risk management analysis" and that the 
beneficiary "develops empirical models of pricing to understand the returns behavior and volatility 
transmission mechanisms for assets and financial markets.,,7 He does not provide examples of 
specific individuals or entities that have relied upon the beneficiary'S models or research results 
and how they are already being applied in the field, as would be expected of a contribution to the 
field as a whole. 
professor of finance at states that he is 
s work, but he does not indicate how he learned of the beneficiary's 
work. He states that the beneficiary'S research has made a significant impact on our understanding 
of international currency markets, by implying that with the introduction of the Euro, hedging may 
now be advantageous. He does not provide examples of how the beneficiary'S research findings are 
being applied in the field. 
states that the beneficiary serves on the 
Mayor's Advisory Committee on states the beneficiary's research "helped in a 
much-needed update on the City's computerized accounting system" and that the beneficiary "is 
involved in drafting a financial plan to study the feasibility of a new web domain for the City." 
While the beneficiary'S work has benefitted the City of Natchez, does not state 
that the beneficiary's research has contributed to the field. 
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'T. 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 
below, use this almost identical language in their letters of reference. 
Page 9 
(Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg1. 
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 proof.s 
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. The petitioner has also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has presented his 
work at several international conferences and symposia. 
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 
Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 
(Nov. 29, 1991». 
8 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 
conclusoryassertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 10 
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 the Journal of Economics and Business, Journal of International 
Business Studies (JIBS), The Financial Review, Journal of Financial and Economic Practice, 
Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Academy of International Business, 
International Academy of Business and Economics, Academy for Global Business Advancement, 
and Journal of Business in Developing Nations. 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 independent references, do not indicate that they 
learned 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. This moderate level of citation is 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 of the 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.