dismissed EB-1B Case: Food Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20612340 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 08, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of I food ingredients, seeks to classify the Beneficiary 
as an outstanding researcher. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(B), 
8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(B). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to 
foreign nationals who are internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the initial 
evidence requirements were met, the record did not establish that the Beneficiary is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the academic field of food science. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding professor or 
researcher 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 [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
professors and researchers. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual. 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding 
professor or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years 
of experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary earned her Ph.D. in food science from the University I I in August 2019. She 
worked as an intern atl I Company for parts of 2014 and 2015, and began her employment 
as an Associate Scientist II for the Petitioner in September 2019. The focus of her current research is 
the development of food palatants. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, relating to 
her participation as a judge of the work of others in her field, original scientific or scholarly research 
contributions to her field, and authorship of scholarly books or articles. However, in conducting a 
final merits determination, he concluded that the totality of the record did not establish the 
Beneficiary's international recognition in her academic field. Upon review, we agree that the 
Beneficiary meets the initial evidence requirements, and will therefore consider all of the evidence in 
the record in conducting a final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we weigh the totality of the evidence to determine whether a petitioner 
has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beneficiary's achievements have been 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. Here, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that instead of applying the two-step adjudication approach adopted 
from Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2010), the Director should have applied a 
different standard taken from Bulletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich 1994). However, as 
previously noted, the Kazarian approach and its application to this classification has been incorporated 
into the USCIS Policy Manual, so we find no error in the Director's decision in accordance with that 
policy. 
The Petitioner next asserts that in conducting the final merits determination, the Director erred by 
applying a more restrictive evidentiary standard and imposing "novel extra international recognition 
requirements under the evidentiary criteria beyond those set forth in the governing regulation. While 
acknowledging its burden of proof, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence "need not be inherently 
outstanding with international recognition." However, this argument reflects a misunderstanding of 
the two-step adjudication approach under USCIS policy. While adjudicators are limited to the plain 
text of the individual criteria under the first step, once a petitioner has established that a beneficiary 
meets those initial evidence requirements, the requirements of the criteria are not applied in conducting 
the final merits analysis. Rather, the totality of the evidence must show that a beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
2 
In discussing the evidence in the record in its appeal brief, the Petitioner first focuses on the reference 
letters submitted by other researchers in the Beneficiary's field, stating on several occasions that the 
Director rejected this evidence. However, we note that the Director's decision included a list of the 
letters and discussed the contents of three of them, ultimately concluding that the statements made in 
these letters are not supported elsewhere in the record. Further, despite the Petitioner's claim that the 
Director falsely considered these letters to all be "solicited references from her circle of collaborators 
and professors," this is not what the decision states.2 After review, we note that although the letters 
provide detail regarding the Beneficiary's research and its impact upon her academic field, when 
considered as part of the totality of the evidence they do not show that her research has been 
internationally recognized as outstanding. 3 
For example, _______ of I I University writes in his letter that he knows of the 
Beneficiary's work through her publications, but does not indicate that he has cited it in his own 
published research or adopted any research techniques or protocols introduced in the Beneficiary's 
publications. As an example of the Beneficiary's work being "embraced by her peers,"I I 
refers to a research project titled I which he states is 
based upon her work. However, a copy of a report for this projectt6t, submitted as Exhibit 16 of the 
original susubmission, shows that the Beneficiary's work was a part of this project at the University of 
during her graduate studies, not that an independent group relied or built upon her previous 
work as suggested byl I He also writes that the si nificance of the Beneficiar 's work is 
shown b her article 
__________ being chosen for the cover page of the issue of Journal of Agriculture 
and Food Chemistry (JAFC) in which it was published. While it is true that the monthly journal 
chooses only 12 papers per year to feature on its cover,I I does not explain why being 
chosen as a cover article demonstrates this paper's significance to the field of food science. His second 
letter, in whichl I identifies himself as anl JAFC, also does not explain 
any connection between an article being chosen for appearance on the cover of an issue and its 
importance to research in the field. 
Another writer of two reference letters was I I of the University of I He 
describes the Beneficiary's research in the area ofl !chemistry, specifically focusing on natural 
products, and notes that she authored a review article focusing on their effects in combatting obesity. 
I I refers to two examples of other research groups who cited to this review paper in 
support of his statement that this work is a "crucial resource" for other researchers. However, we note 
that the article published in Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B states that "there is no shortage of reviews 
on including natural roducts ... " when citing to this paper along with two others. 
Similarly, the other paper referred to in letter, ublished in Scienti 1c Re orts, also 
cites to two other a ers in notin the 
While this evidence shows that others 
have cited to the Beneficiary's paper, it does not suppo _____ conclusion regarding the 
significance of this work, or show that it has been internationally recognized as outstanding. 
2 The decision states, after a review of the letters, that "the record does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding beyond these solicited references and her circle of collaborators and professors." ( emphasis 
added) 
3 All of the reference letters in the record have been reviewed and considered, including those not specifically mentioned 
in this decision. 
3 
A third expert in the area of food science who submitted a reference letter for the Beneficiary is 
of I University, who also says they have not worked with 
her but know of her work through her publications. I I states in their letter that the number 
of citations of the Beneficiary's work represents "a tremendous accomplishment," and that many of 
these citations show direct implementation of her work. But they do not provide specific examples of 
the implementation of her work, and while the letter describes her research in great detail, it does not 
provide support for the statement that her research has "had a profound impact on studies on the 
I I 
In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the statements regarding the Beneficiary's recognition in her 
field as outstanding is corroborated by her citation record, copies of citing articles, and analytic data 
from Altmetric. It also asserts, as with the reference letters, that the Director failed to consider each 
of these groups of evidence, but a review of the decision indicates otherwise. While the Petitioner 
may disagree with the conclusions reached by the Director after review of this evidence, its statements 
that it was not considered lack support. 
Turning first to the evidence of the number of citations to the Beneficiary's published research, this 
evidence, along with related evidence such as journal impact factors and analytics, can help to show 
how a researcher's work has made original contributions to their academic field. See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.3(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Similarly, such evidence relating to a 
researcher's overall body of work may contribute to showing the extent to which their work has been 
recognized as outstanding at the national or international level. In this case, the Director 
acknowledged the number of citations to the Beneficiary's overall work, but noted that the record 
lacked additional evidence which put those overall figures in context. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary's "extensive worldwide citation record" shows her international recognition in the 
field, but the number of citations to her work by scientists working in other countries does not alone 
show that those scientists, or the academic field in general, consider her work to be outstanding. Both 
the quality and quantity of evidence in the record must be considered in a final merits determination, 
and in this case, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's work is considered to be 
outstanding at the international level. 
For example, in responding to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner submitted several articles published 
in scientific journals in which the researchers appear to have adopted a laboratory procedure used by 
the Beneficiary and reported in the previously mentioned JAFC article published in 2018. However, 
three of those articles were authored by I and his group at the University ofl ] 
which indicates that he continues to use the same procedures established earlier in his lab. This is not 
indicative of international recognition of the Beneficiary's work, but is rather a continuation of the 
same research in which she previously participated, using the same protocols. In two additional 
articles written by other research groups, procedures were adopted not just from those described in the 
Beneficiary's published work, but from those of other groups as well. While this evidence shows that 
the Beneficiary's work has been relied upon to some extent by others in their own research, it does not 
show international recognition of this work. 
The Petitioner also points to analytic scores provided by Altmetric in support of the claim that the 
Beneficiary's work is internationally recognized as outstanding. Initially, we agree with the Petitioner 
that the Director's blanket statement that this evidence has no probative value is erroneous, and will 
4 
consider it in our review. The scores indicate that her 2018 article published in JAFC was viewed 
1687 times as of September 2021, received either a "good" or "high" attention score depending on 
which parameters are considered, and was cited on 21 occasions by other researchers in their own 
published work. The Petitioner also submitted the same information related to the Beneficiary's article 
published in Molecules in 2016. We note that the record shows that the Altmetric attention score is 
based upon a variety of factors, including mentions in news stories, blogs and social media, and it is 
therefore not based upon reactions only from others in the academic field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that this score is directly related to or indicative of recognition as outstanding in the 
academic field. In addition, the record does not include evidence which puts the number of views of 
these articles in context with those of other published papers in the field. 
Second, the Petitioner submitted evidence concerning the impact factor of JAFC and Molecules, as 
well as rankings and other analytics scores. Although the record shows that both of these journals 
have impact factors above 4, impact factor and other journal analytics alone do not show that all 
articles published in these journals are necessarily considered to be outstanding and receive 
international recognition. Rather, we look to the reaction of other researchers to the individual paper 
as evidence of its reception, recognition or application in the academic field. The "Dimensions" 
analytics for the Molecules article indicates that it has received more than 7 times the citations than 
average, 4 while this data was not available for the 2018 JAFC article at the time of filing. Evidence 
regarding three other articles authored by the Beneficiary shows a slightly above-average rate of 
citation. While this evidence suggests that the review article authored by the Beneficiary received 
attention in her academic field, the statistics and analytics do not establish that she, and her work as a 
whole, is internationally recognized as standing out from other food science researchers. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's peer review activity, the Director concluded in his decision that although 
the evidence was sufficient to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), her participation in 
the peer-review process through reviewing 20 manuscripts submitted to JAFC was routine and did not 
show her recognition or standing within the field of food science. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that this activity shows recognition of the Beneficiary's expertise in her field. Although the 
Beneficiary's expertise, and therefore her qualification to serve as a peer reviewer for scientific 
journals in her field, is not in question, the record does not establish that this work is indicative of 
international recognition as outstanding. We acknowledge! !statements in his second 
letter which tie the Beneficiary's publication in and peer review for JAFC to recognition in her 
academic field, but we note that they are not supported by documentary evidence of the criteria or 
process the journal uses to select peer-reviewers. 
Finally, the Petitioner included additional evidence with its appeal brief, an "expert op1mon 
evaluation" of the Beneficiary's credentials and experience, which it urges us to consider. Where, as 
here, a Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time 
on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). In addition, even if we were to consider this evidence, we note that this evaluation is 
based upon review of the same materials submitted in support of this petition, was created solely for 
the purpose of supporting this petition, is not based upon first-hand knowledge of the Beneficiary's 
4 A different page lists "field citation ratio" as 7 .11 and "relative citation ratio" as 2.34 for this article. 
5 
work, and provides opinions relating to her qualification for a benefit under immigration law, an area 
in which the author does not claim expertise. The letter simply recites information taken from the 
record, including the expert opinions of others as discussed above, and therefore is of marginal 
probative value. 
The evidence submitted by the Petitioner shows that the Beneficiary has contributed to the field of 
food science through her original research published in scientific journals and presented at 
conferences, as well as through her service as a peer reviewer. However, after consideration of the 
totality of this evidence, which also included her receipt of a graduate fellowship, evidence relating to 
citations to her published work by other researchers, and several reference letters, we conclude that it 
does not establish that she has been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in her 
academic field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). However, upon review of the totality of this evidence, it does not establish 
that she is internationally recognized as an outstanding professor or researcher in her academic field. 
For this reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6