dismissed EB-1B Case: Geology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18396197 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a public university, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or 
researcher in the field of geology. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 
8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to 
noncitizens who are internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Beneficiary 
met the initial evidence requirements by meeting at least two of the evidentiary criteria under this 
classification, the totality of the record did not establish that he possessed the recognition needed for 
an outstanding professor or researcher. 
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 
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 Petitioner currently employs the Beneficiary as an Assistant Professor of G~ Prior to 
beginning this role in 2018, he earned a Ph.D. in geoscience from the University ofl___J 
In his decision, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary met three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i), relating to his authorship of scholarly articles, participation as a judge of the 
work of others in his field, and original scientific research contributions to the field. Upon review, we 
agree with the Director's conclusions regarding these criteria. As the Petitioner has established that 
the Beneficiary has met the initial evidentiary requirement for classification as an outstanding 
professor or researcher, we will proceed to the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether a petitioner has established that a beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in 
their field of expertise. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary 
meets that standard. 
The record includes evidence that the Beneficiary has been involved in several forms of peer review, 
particularly since earning his Ph.D. This includes his review of manuscripts submitted to journals 
such as Journal of Metamorphic Geology, Lithos and Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, as well as his 
role as an editorial board member for three open access journals. The evidence shows that he serves 
as an associate editor for Lithosphere, GeochemistJy, and Earth Science, Systems and Society, although 
only the evidence for Lithosphere provides any description of the duties involved, stating that associate 
editors "run peer review in their area of expertise." It is therefore not apparent that the responsibilities, 
and thus recognition, associated with these titles exceed that of peer reviewers for at least two of the 
journals. We also note that the record does not include evidence about these journals or how they 
select associate editors, and documentation from two of the three include only partial lists of editorial 
board members. As such, it does not demonstrate that selection for or membership on these editorial 
boards is prestigious or exclusive, or otherwise indicative of recognition. While this evidence shows 
that the Beneficiary is recognized as having a level of expertise in his field sufficient to serve as a peer 
reviewer, and in one case to provide some unspecified level of oversight for others conducting peer 
review in geology and related sub-fields, as a whole it does not demonstrate that he is recognized as 
standing apart from other professors and researchers at the international level. 
professors and researchers. USCIS Policy Memorandum, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14, PM-602-0005.1 (Dec. 
22, 2010). 
2 
In addition to his service for journals, the Petitioner also submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has 
served as a session chair for two conferences. Specifically, the record shows that he was one of seven 
chairs for two sessions at the 2019 annual meeting of the ~---------~ Geological 
Society of America, and the ~------~ and one of three chairs for two sessions at the 2020 
I !American Geophysical Union. In its response to the Director's notice of intent to 
deny (NOID), the Petitioner noted that some of the presenters at these sessions were from countries 
other than the United States, and asserted that these were therefore prestigious international 
conferences. However, the Petitioner did not provide additional evidence about these conferences or 
which describes the role of a convener or session chair, which appear to be chosen from the small 
group ofresearchers presenting papers in a particular session of the conference. As such, this evidence 
does not demonstrate recognition above that of the Beneficiary's qualification to serve as a peer 
reviewer or beyond that of the small group of presenters in these sessions. 
Another form of peer review conducted by the Beneficiary was as a technical reviewer for a National 
Science Foundation (NSF) research proposal in the field of tectonics. A letter from the NSF confirms 
that his review was "extremely thorough and of significant value in assessing the merits of the research 
proposal," but does not provide information regarding the selection process for technical reviewers. 
This evidence adds the NSF to the list of organizations noted above who have recognized the 
Beneficiary's expertise in the field of geology, and therefore his qualification to serve as a peer 
reviewer. But his qualifications and willingness to serve in this capacity does not show recognition 
that he stands out from his peers and colleagues in the field. 
The Petitioner also focuses on the Beneficiary's record of publication and the recognition of his 
published work by others in the field of geology. In responding to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner 
submitted metrics from Microsoft Academic which show that in terms of both the number of papers 
published (12) and the citations to those publications (123), the Beneficiary ranked in the top percentile 
of researchers in the database. That evidence, however, lacks details about how those percentages 
were calculated and the source of the data, bringing the reliability and subjectivity of the metrics into 
question. Further, the raw data shown undermines the significance of the metrics for determining the 
Beneficiary's standing within his field. We note that even researchers who have published only two 
papers could claim to be in the top 10% of those in the field of geology, and that a single citation to 
that work would place them in the top 25%. Such heavily skewed figures do not serve as an accurate 
gauge of the Beneficiary's standing in the field among active researchers. More importantly, since 
these metrics do not provide information about the manner in which the Beneficiary's work was cited, 
they do not show that it was recognized as outstanding. 
In addition to the metrics, the Petitioner also included partial copies of some of the papers which cite 
to the Beneficiary's published work, evidence which it asserts was not given sufficient consideration 
by the Director. Many of these articles cite to the Beneficiary's work as an example of previous 
research which has produced certain results, frequently along with other articles, and in some instances 
as background material in the introduction section. For example, a 2020 article in Geological Journal 
cites to the Beneficiary's first-authored paper published in the Journal of Asian Earth Sciences
1
(JAES) I 
in 2015 among several others to suggest a theory about geological events that took place in 
I I The same paper was also one of two cited in the introduction section of a 2016 JAES 
paper, and later as one of two cited in the "Geological setting" section. In another example, a 2020 
paper published in Lithos notes the Beneficiary's 2019 paper in Journal of Metamorphic Geology as 
3 
one of four which propose an argument relating to ~----------~" but then states that 
"this popular viewpoint has been challenged by several studies ... " Also, a review article highlighted 
in the Petitioner's NOID response cites one of the Beneficiary's recent papers, along with two others, 
for a broad statement regarding the effects of plate tectonics. Although this evidence shows that other 
researchers have acknowledged the Beneficiary's work and used it to advance their own, it does not 
show that these citing researchers considered his work to be outstanding. 
With its response to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner submitted Google Scholar profiles for others 
in the Beneficiary's field, mostly assistant professors at colleges and universities in the United States. 
Most show that those other professors and researchers, as well as some postdoctoral scholars, have 
slightly fewer citations to their published work than the Beneficiary, especially when considering his 
citations which only appear in the Chinese database CNKI. However, as noted by the Director in his 
decision, this evidence does not show that any of these early career professors and researchers are 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the field of geology. We note that a comparison of the 
Beneficiary's citations to that of others at a similar or earlier stage in their career does not provide a 
complete or accurate picture of his standing in the field of geology overall. 
Additional evidence submitted in support of the petition on the Beneficiary's behalf includes reference 
letters from other experts in his field.2 One of these was written byl I the 
Beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor at the Universit~ I She describes his research in thel I I hd its importance to the understanding of geological processes, and in 
particular one study concerning I I and its mechanics. Although~-----~ 
discusses this research in detail, she does not indicate that it has been recognized as influential in the 
field of geology or as outstanding work. 
~-----------' of I I University also write a reference letter for the 
Beneficiary, in which he focuses on the research published in the Journal of Metamorphic Geology 
referenced above. He notes the citation by the authors of the 2020 article in Lithos, concluding that 
the Beneficiary's research is needed to fully understand! I but does not address the 
author's statement regarding challenges to the Beneficiary's conclusions. He also refers to the 
Beneficiary's research in the area of plate tectonics, stating that considered with other studies it 
provided "answers to numerous long-standing questions regarding global-scale plate tectonics," but 
we note that neither the letter nor other evidence in the record support the suggestion of a significant 
impact on the field implied in that statement. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence that he was invited to present talks a~ I university 
in New York in 2018 and at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in 2019. The email 
invitation from I I was from an assistant professor of energy geophysics at the institution 
and regarded a seminar series for "new faculty members from around our region." The museum's 
invitation mentions a seminar on Thursday afternoons but does not provide further information, such 
as the nature of the intended audience and whether the talk was promoted. While we recognize that 
AMNH is a well-known and respected museum, the evidence does not show that the Beneficiary 
received these invitations based upon recognition as an outstanding professor or researcher. 
2 All of the reference letters in the record were reviewed and considered, including those not specifically mentioned in this 
decision. 
4 
The record shows that the Beneficiary is a talented researcher who contributes to the field of geology 
through his publications and his activity in several forms of peer review. After review of the totality 
of the record, including but not limited to his publication record, citation record, history of peer review 
activities, reference letters from experts in the field, and evidence comparing his productivity to that 
of others in his field, we conclude that Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary enjoys the 
level of recognition required for this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5