dismissed EB-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Department of Homela~nd Security 
20 Mass. Ave , N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 7 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: r . - 
WAC 04 038 5 529 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
kobert P. Wiemann, D~rector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Califorria Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner for the amended petition is a university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
4 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a professor 
of finance. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the significance of the beneficiary's 
research, or that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in her academic field, as required 
for classification as an outstanding researcher. In addition, the director, after inviting the initial self-petitioner to 
amend the petition with a new eligible petitioner, concluded that the initial self-petitioner was not eligible to file 
a petition in the classification sought as a self-petitioner. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the petition was amended to change the petitioner (in response to the director's 
invitation to do so) and asserts that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(l) provides: 
Any United States employer desiring and intending to employ a professor or researcher who is 
outstanding in an academic field under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act may file an 1-140 visa 
petition for such classification. 
The beneficiary filed the initial petition on her own behalf. Thus, at the time, the petition was deniable without 
any further need to request additional documentation at that time. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8). Nevertheless, the 
director did not take such action. Rather, the director issued a request for additional evidence (IRFE) that 
included the following language: 
If the petitioner wants to keep box "b" checked, the petitioner has to complete part 1 (Company 
or Organization) of the petition and resubmit the copy, complete.part 5, and the petitioner has to 
sign part 8 of the petition. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a new petition as requested. Without explanation or even acknowledging 
his own invitation to amend the petition and the submission of an amended petition, the director concluded that 
the beneficiary impermissibly filed the petition. The language in the RFE strongly suggests that the director was 
inviting the self-petitioner to amend the petition by changing the petitioner to an employer. We can find no legal 
provision that obligates (or even permits) the director to extend such a courtesy. Nevertheless, since he did so, 
and since the petitioner responded with the documentation requested, a petition signed by the beneficiary's 
employer, we withdraw the director's subsequent failure to accept the amendment without explanation. For the 
reasons discussed below, however, we uphold the director's finding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(ID) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be 
accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teachlng andlor research In 
the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an advanced degree 
will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the teaching duties were such 
that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if the research conducted toward the 
degree has been recognized within the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
andlor research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from former or current employer(!;) 
and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on November 25,2003 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field 
of finance. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of teaching 
experience in the field of finance as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally withln the field of finance as outstanding. The petitioner confirms employing the beneficiary as 
an assistant professor since August 1999 and the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's Forms W-2 dating back 
to 2000. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must 
be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in 
the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy 
at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international 
recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of 
international recognition. The petitioner claims that the beneficiary has satisfied the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the 
academic field 
The director concluded that the record contained no evidence of major awards for outstanding achievement. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner did submit evidence of the beneficiary's awards in response to the 
director's RFE, although we note that counsel did not address this criterion at that time. We will consider thls 
evidence. Out the outset, however, we note that not all recognition constitutes "major" awards for "outstanding 
achievement in the academic field." To hold otherwise would render the use of those words meaningless. A 
statute should be construed under the assumption that Congress intended it to have purpose and meaningful 
effect. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 249 (1985); Sutton v. United 
States, 8 19 F.2d. 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1987). A similar approach is reasonable when interpreting regulations. 
The petitioner was one of four recipients of the 2004 Faculty Development Grant from the Chinese American 
Faculty Association of Southern California (CAFA). The record contains does not contain the grant itself or any 
information about the purpose of the grant and how it is administered. The name of the association implies that 
the grant is limited to faculty in Southern California. As such, the grant is not indicative of international 
recognition. Moreover, a grant is generally intended to fund future activity based on the submission of a 
proposal as apposed to recognition of past outstanding achievements. Finally, there is nothing in the record to 
suggest this grant is related to the beneficiary's field of finance. As such, the petitioner has not established that 
the grant is a major award for outstanding achievements in the beneficialy's academic field of finance. 
Regardless, the award was issued in 2004, after the date of filing, and is not evidence of the beneficiary's 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comrn. 
1971). 
In addition, Dr. Thomas Williams, an assistant professor at Fayetteville State University who coauthored two 
articles with the beneficiary while both were Ph.D. candidates at Texas A&M University, asserts that one of the 
articles won the Distinguished Research Award at the Allied Academies 2002 Fall International Conference. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence from the Allied Academies, indicating that the founders of this 
academy hosted its first conference in 1994 to promote new ideas and small schools. While the materials assert 
an "international presence," the materials also acknowledge that readership of the academy's journals must be 
expanded "so we can increase their impact." The materials name the petitioner as a winner of the distinguished 
research award, but it appears from a review of all the materials that this "award" merely connotes a presenter 
whose work was accepted for publication. Acceptance for publication, while notable and often competitive, is 
not a major award. Thus petitioner has not established that the distinguished research award is a major award 
for outstanding achievement to which experts in the field of finance aspire to win. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary meets 
this criterion. 
I 
The petitioner does not claim and the record does not contain evidence relating to any of the criteria not 
discussed in this decision. 
Docurnentation of the alien's lnembership in associations in the academic field wlzich r,cquire 
outstanding achievements of their rnembers 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted letters attesting to the beneficiary's pr.ofessional 
memberships. - Senior Membership Services Coordinator, confirms that the petitioner joined 
the Eastern Finance Association (EFA) in 2003. sserts that the association "is a premier 
or anization with membership comprised of university faculty and professionals overall the world." 
a*. professor at the petitioning university, asserts that the beneficiary is a member of CAFA.. 
explains that CAFA "is a professional association that promotes research and research collaborations ,among the 
Chinese American faculty of the universities in the southern California area." The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated that outstanding achievements are "a pre-requisite for membership." 
On appeal, counsel reiterates the information in the above letters and the petitioner submits materials regarding 
EFA. According to the materials submitted, EFA membership can be obtained through their Internet website. 
The materials do not contain the actual membership requirements. 
We do not assume that every association that enjoys a premier or preeminent reputation as an association has 
exclusive membership requirements. The petitioner has not established that EFA restricts memberslip in any 
way other than to students and professionals in a related field. Practicing or studying in one's field is not an 
outstanding achievement. As such, we cannot conclude that EFA requires outstanding achievements of their 
members. In addition, CAFA is not even an association in the petitioner's academic field of finance as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). Rather, it is an association for faculty in all fields :limited by 
ethnicity and region. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that CAFA requires outstanding achievements 
of their members. Finally, the petitioner lists other memberships on her resume, but the record contains no 
evidence of her membership in these other associations or their membership requirements. In light of 1:he above, 
we concur with the director that the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of 
others in rhe same or an allied academicfield 
The record reflects that the beneficiary has refereed papers for the 2000 and 2001 Financial Management 
Association (FMA). In addition, a colleague at the petitioning university requested that the petitioner review an 
article for the Journal of Insurance Issues. The petitioner lists another conference for which she a.pparently 
served as a reviewer, but the record contains no evidence in support of that assertion. The director concluded 
that the record lacked sufficient corroboration of the petitioner's judging and evidence of the signiiicance of 
these judging responsibilities. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the requests themselves "are evidence of a formal selection process and of [the 
beneficiary's] outstanding qualifications and international recognition." 
We cannot ignore that conferences where research is presented are peer reviewed and rely on many 
professionals in the field to review submitted papers. Thus, peer review is routine in academia; not every peer 
reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in her 
field, such as evidence that she received independent requests from a substantial number of international 
conferences or journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished international journal, we cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. Finally, we note that a request to review a journal rnanuscript 
from a colleague at one's own place of employment is not indicative of international recognition. In light of the 
above, while we withdraw the director's finding that the actual comment sheets should have been submitted, we 
concur with the ultimate conclusion that the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the acade?nicJield. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "orignal" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
Research work that is unorignal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's degree, let alone 
classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reason that the 
beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To argue that all orignal resezirch is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unorigmal." 
professor at the petitioning university, asserts that the beneficiary "is one of a handful 
of scholars internationally who studies family business issues in an international context, and perhaps the only 
scholar of note who does this particularly with regard to the pacific basin." He professes to know of no one else 
with the beneficiary's "experience, talent and training." 
a member of the beneficiary's doctoral dissertation research committee at Tenas A&M 
University, asserts that the beneficiary "has already contributed significantly to the professional literature in 
France," but provides no examples of any contributions other than to "have added the results of her research to 
the body of professional literature in Finance.'' In a subsequent lett-sets that the beneficiary has 
made "simificant additions to the bodv of ~rofessional literature in Finance." General attestations of a u 
contribution to the field without more detail are insufficient. does not identi@ ;t specific 
contribution or explain how it has influenced the field. 
Chair of the beneficiary's department at the petitioning university, praises the 
a teacher, notes her publications and conference presentations, asserts that she 
organizes the department's "brown bag" seminar series and discusses her service as treasurer with a - 
Troop. That the beneficiary is a capable instructor is not an orignal contribution to the academic field as a 
whole. Not every published article or conference presentation that adds to the pool of knowledge can be 
considered indicative of international recognition. The beneficiary's organizational and volunteer assistance at 
the petitioning university and in the community are not relevant to the petition. 
an associate professor of business law at the petitioning university and a coauthor of the 
beneficiary, discusses the beneficiary's professionalism and asserts that she "makes meaningful contril~utions to 
the group." 
F 
oes not identi6 a contribution to the field of finance as a whole or explain how it has 
impacted the fie1 . 
The director determined that the letters were "for the most part" from the beneficiary's professors, ad\.isors and 
coworkers and concluded that the beneficiary had not demonstrated any recognition in the international 
community. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's publications and invitations to chair and speak at 
conferences demonstrate her international recognition. 
On her resume, the etitioner lists three conferences in Cleveland, Seattle and Chicago that she allegedly 
chaired. in addition to confirming the beneficiary's membership in EFA, corlfirms the 
beneficiary's service as "presenter, discussant and session chair in our annual conferences." The record 
contains no evidence that the beneficiary has chaired an entire conference as implied on her resume. We need 
not accept the beneficiary's self serving statements on her resume; going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Treasure Craj?, 14 I&N Dec. 190, 193-194 (Reg. Comm. 19721, broadened in Matter of :Sbffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) and Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206,2 1 1 (Comm. 1998). 
We concur with the director that the record is void of any indication that the beneficiary's ongnal contributions 
have been recognized internationally in her field. Letters from the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues, 
especially those that fail to identify or explain the beneficiary's alleged contributions, are insufficient by 
themselves. While the beneficiary may have presented and published her work, the record contains no evidence, 
such as citations or letters from independent members of the field influenced by her work, that these 
presentations and articles have had any notable influence on the field. Thus, we concur with the director that the 
beneficiary fails to meet this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The et~tioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored four publ~shed art~cles. m 
hair of the beneficiary's department, asserts that one of the publications that featured the 
beneficiary's work, the Journal of Legal Ecolzomics "is a leading academic journal in the field of Legal 
Economics." He continues that the journal "publishes pathbrealung research in litigation, fraud deterrence, and 
forensic economics." Finally, he states that the journal has domestic and international subscribers. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary's publication record sets her 
apart from others in the field. On appeal, counsel reiterates the beneficiary's publication and presentation 
history and the petitioner submits evidence that some of the publications in which the beneficiary's work has 
appeared are circulated internationally. We must evaluate the evidence as to whether it is indicative of 
international recognition. It is common for Ph.D. students and professors to publish their work. '9s stated 
above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that independent members of the field have cited the 
beneficiary's work, letters from independent members of the field who have been influenced by the beneficiary, 
course reading lists from courses in the United States and abroad listing the beneficiary's work as required or 
recommended reading, or other comparable evidence that her published work is recognized internationally. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented professor, who has won the respect of her 
collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing a minimal degree of international exposure for her work. 
The record, however, stops far short of elevating the beneficiary to an international reputation as an outstanding 
researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C 
5 1361. The petitioner haspot sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The-appeal is dismissed.