dismissed EB-1B Case: Geology And Micropaleontology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton. DC 20529 
identipvlas data &Wed *, U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
- 
TNSTRUCTIONS : 
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. 
LC- 
- 
~obert P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a state university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding professor pursuant to 
section 2030>)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(B). According to 
the petition, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a lecturer. The 
, director determined that the petitioner had not made a qualifying job offer to the beneficiary and had not 
established that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for 
classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel only addresses the second basis of the director's decision. We note that the absence of a 
qualifying job offer is a sufficient basis for denial of the petition in and of itself. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority 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) withn 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 
(m) 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)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor certification is not 
required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, division, or 
institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for a term 
of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily have an 
expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for termination. 
On Part 6 of the petitia, the petitioner indi employment as a lecturer was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter fi-o rofessor and Department Coordinator at the 
petitioning university to Citizenship and asserting that the beneficiary "is a Visiting 
Lecturer in the De art ent of Earth Science at [the petitioning university], and that he will be continuing in that 
capacity. equests that the beneficiary's "visa be extended, ideally for several years, as we would 
like to continue to work with him in upcoming academic endeavors." This document does not constitute a job 
offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary. On January 23, 2004, the director requested evidence that the 
petitioner had extended a tenure, tenure-track or permanent job offer to the beneficiary. 
In response, counsel 
and recommendation letters fro 
appears to represent 
and an edltor of 
In a letter dated August 5,200 a professor at Louisiana State university, appraises the beneficiary's 
research. ~eithe nor appear to have any authority to make the beneficiary a permanent job 
offer on behalf of the petitioning university and neither purport to do so. 
a professor at Northern Illinois University, where the beneficiary also works, discusses his 
with the beneficiary. -chair of the beneficiary's department at Northern Illinois 
University, asserts that "in addition to teac ing as an Assistant Professor at [t university], has 
been a part-time Visiting Assistant Professor at Northern Illinois University. oes not appear to 
have the authority to confirni a tenure, tenure-track or permanent position 
The letter fro -is a copy of the letter submitted initially and discussed above. 
The director concluded that the letter from id not constitute an offer of full-time permanent 
employment. On appeal, counsel fails to address this issue. We concur with the director that the record lacks 
a qualifying job offer from the petitioning university. Specifically, the petitioner has not established that it 
has offered the beneficiary a tenure, tenure-track or permanent position. 
Page 4 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 teaching and/or 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 
and/or research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from former or current employer(s) 
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 August 28, 2003 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field of 
geology and micropaleontology. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three 
years of teaching or research experience in the field of geology or micropaleontology as of that date, and that the 
beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. The record establishes 
that the beneficiary has worked for the petitioner since the Fall 2000 semester. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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 to have satisfied the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement irz the 
academic field 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel references the beneficiary's fellowship, 
scholarship and research award at Northern Illinois University. The beneficiary lists these accomplishments on 
his curriculum vitae but the petitioner submits no evidence to support these claims. The director concluded that 
these accomplishments were limited to students at Northern Illinois University and, thus, not indicative of 
international recognition. The director further concluded that academic awards are not awards for achievements 
in the academic field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary has "won several prizes and awards in 
recognition of his outstanding achievements." 
Counsel's statement does not address the directors concerns, with which we agree. Scholarships and academic 
fellowships are generally based on past academic achievement, not for accomplishments in a field of endeavor. 
While 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) references outstanding achievements in one's academic field, 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study." The definition 
does not include typical bases for scholarships, such as grade point average and class standing. It remains, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. Rather, academic study is training for a future 
career in an academic field. As such, scholarships in recognition of academic achievement, such as grade point 
average, are insufficient. In addition, the beneficiary only competed against other students at the university at 
that time for the scholarship, fellowship and research award. Scholarships and the beneficiary's student award 
are simply not evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high academic 
achievements in comparison with his fellow students. 
Finally, as stated above, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary received the honors claimed. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal$ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). Thus, we need not 
accept the beneficiary's self-serving claims on his curriculum vitae. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Docttmentation of the alien's nzembership in associations in the acadenzic field which require 
outstanding achieveinents of their members 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion through his employment and his membership in the North American Micropaleontology Section 
(NAMS) of the Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM) and the American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists (AAPG). While the petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's employment. the only 
evidence of the beneficiary's membership in NAMS and AAPG are the inclusion of these memberships on the 
beneficiary's curriculum vitae. The petitioner also failed to submit evidence of the membership requirements 
for these associations. 
The director concluded that while the petitioner may require "outstanding performance" of its faculty, the recard 
did not establish that such performance would gamer international recognition. The director further concluded 
that the record did not establish that NAMS or AAPG require outstanding achievements of their members. On 
appeal, counsel does not address these concerns. 
An element of this criterion is that the associations require outstanding achievements of their members. The 
petitioner has not submitted any evidence that NAMS or AAPG require such achievements of their members. 
Regardless of whether the petitioner requires "outstanding performance" of its faculty, the petitioner is a 
university, not an association in the beneficiary's academic field. A job is not a "membership." Thus, the 
beneficiary's employment is simply not relevant to this criterion. Finally, as stated above, the record lacks 
evidence that the beneficiary is, in fact, a member of NAMS or AAPG. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic Jield. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
The petitioner relies on citations of the beneficiary's articles to meet this criterion. The director concluded that 
reference to the beneficiary's work without evaluation was insufficient to meet this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that "other acclaimed scientists have mentioned [the beneficiary's] research in their own work." 
Articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the beneficiary. As 
such, they cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary. Thus, we concur with the director that 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 record reflects that the beneficiary has refereed articles for Marine Micropaleontology. an editor 
of the journal, asserts that the journal "only requestrs] reviews from scientists who have contributed 
significantly to their specialtk55nd-who have a solid grasp of the cutting edge of their research fields." Counsel 
and the beneficiary also assert that the beneficiary has served as a thesis and research advisor for graduate and 
undergraduate students as well as sponsoring un for an annual student research and creative 
activities symposium at the petitioning upports these assertions. 
The director acknowledged that journals require experienced and knowledgeable reviewers but concluded that 
the petitioner had not established that the review requests were indicative of international recognition or how the 
beneficiary's review record compared with others in the field. The director also concluded that the type of 
student supervision inherent in the beneficiary's position with the petitioner was not indicative of international 
recognition. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary "has participated in panels, signifying his 
knowledge in the field." 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted 
articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. 
Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart fiom others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed 
an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of international 
journals, served in an editorial position for a distinguished international journal, or served as an outside thesis or 
dissertation advisor for students at other institutions, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contribzltions to the academicfielti. 
Counsel references the beneficiary's publication record as evidence of the beneficiary's contributions to the 
field. We note that the publication of scholarly articles is a separate criterion. To presume that evidence 
relating to that criterion, without additional evidence of the beneficiary's influence in the field, also meets this 
criterion would render the requirement that a beneficiary must meet two criteria meaningless. 
The beneficiary authored 13 articles published between 1989 and 1999, a book chapter published in 1999 and a 
final article published after the date of filing. The petitioner submitted a list of 25 articles that cite the 
beneficiary's work. We note that several of these articles are self-citations by the beneficiary himself or a 
coauthor. While self-citation is a normal and expected practice, it cannot establish the beneficiary's 
international recognition. The most independent citations received by any one article is six. 
The most comprehensive work comes fiomhe external 
examiner of the dissertation. rovides a highly technical explanation of the 
beneficiary's work and to foraminifera1 studies, and will be useful 
in marine geological investigations focused on Neogene paleoceanography." acknowledges the 
expected influence of the beneficiary's but concludes that the beneficiary's research 
"bears ample evidence of orignality." s "care with the data matrix" that 
contributes to the credibility of the bene 
In most oceanic areas, biological productivity must have a seasonal signal. Is the foraminiferal 
record in abyssal sediments good enough to show an imprint of this seasonality? In answering 
this question (positively), [the beneficiary] has put his mark on deep-sea foraminiferal ecology 
and paleoecology. 
sserts that the beneficiary's work involves global climate change and is "vital to understanding the 
that might affect global climate as human induced changes 
continues that the beneficiary's research group "developed unique analytical methods." 
that the is necessary to his group. We acknowledge 
n addition to his position at the petitioning institution. The petitioner, 
as an outstanding professor at its own institution, not at Northern 
Illinois University wher -la. 
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 original research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unorignal ." 
Noting that the record included "only one letter" from outside the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues, 
the director concluded that the record did not demonstrate that the beneficiary had garnered any international 
recognition for his contributions. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary has received praise "from 
members of the international scientific community" and that the petitioner submitted "countless articles, 
publications, recommendation letters, and proof of achievements and experience in support" of the petition. 
As stated above, the record contains five letters of reference, 13 articles published prior to the date of filing, one 
book chapter and evidence of no more than six citations for any one of the beneficiary's articles. While the 
director concluded that one of the beneficiary's references was not a member of the beneficiary's immediate 
circle of colleagues, we find that-s not independent of the beneficiary. He was an external examiner 
of the beneficiary's dissertation. The record is absent evidence that independent experts internationally 
recognize the beneficiary's contributions to the field of geology. 
Finally, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's research should not be discounted merely because he 
collaborated with others. While we agree with counsel that collaboration is typical in the beneficiary's field, 
the collaborative nature of the beneficiary's work does not appear to have been the director's basis of denial. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention fi-om the scientific community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who 
performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge is recognized internationally. In light 
of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien Ir\. authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary's publication record, while not "copious" was sufficient to meet this 
criterion in part because of the beneficiary's authorship of a book chapter. We will not contest this finding. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the respect of 
his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international exposure for his work. 
The record, however, stops 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. Moreover, as stated above, the petitioner has not established that it had made a qualifying job 
offer to the beneficiary. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.