dismissed EB-1B Case: International Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10713253 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 24, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner , a public college , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or 
researcher in the field of international economics , technology , and development. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B) , 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(l)(B) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required , that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic 
field. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Director 
overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in the record , and that this evidence establishes that 
the Beneficiary qualifies under the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. 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 and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically , 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 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, 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 received her Ph.D. in Economics from University ofl I 
in 2013. She later worked as an Assistant Professor at thd I I I The Beneficiary is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Economics in the 
Petitioner's Department of Social Sciences, Human Services and Criminal Justice. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in her field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly articles. As she 
therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record when 
conducting the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher or professor's accomplishments and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the 
evidence 2, that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that she has been 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 3 
1 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
professors and researchers. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, 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 
20 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 251& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
3 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
2 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the "Director erred in stating that evidence showing the 
Beneficiary has 'judged the work of others' by serving as a reviewer for academic journals does not 
'set the alien apart from the field."' It further contends that "[ t ]he regulation does not require the 
Beneficiary to show that her participation 'exceeds that of other researchers' as stated in . . . the 
denial." Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded letters of support attesting 
to the Beneficiary's peer review service and her accomplishments in the field. It further states that 
Director did not properly consider articles and book reviews written by others about her work in the 
academic field. 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's 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. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). Therefore, 
to the extent that the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language 
requirements of specific evidentiary criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level, his analysis was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to 
the requested immigrant visa classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the record includes a 
November 2015 email from thel I Committee on 
Doctoral Studies thanking the Beneficiary "for agreeing to be an external examiner" for a doctoral 
student's thesis. Here, the evidence shows only that the Beneficiary agreed to serve as an external 
examiner for I I Committee on Doctoral Studies, not that she completed the requested thesis 
evaluation report. Regardless, the Petitioner did not provide supporting documentation showing that 
serving in such a capacity renders the Beneficiary internationally recognized as outstanding in the 
academic field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner also submitted emails thanking her for reviewing one manuscript each for Vikalpa: 
Journal for Decision Makers (2016) and Economic Modelling (2017). In response to the Director's 
notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner presented a November 2019 letter frorrJ I 
I I Economic Modelling, which states: "Because of the importance of peer review in 
maintaining the quality and validity of the research published in the journal, we would only request 
reviews from recognized experts in the field." This letter further indicates: "We asked [the 
Beneficiary] to serve as a reviewer because she is an expert on.__ _______ ____. and an 
outstanding researcher in Economics." 4 
The Petitioner's response to the NOID also included a December 2013 agenda for the~I ---~ 
Academy of Management Conference at I I While the aforementioned conference agenda 
activities, research contributions, published and presented work, and citation evidence, and explained why that evidence, 
as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level. 
4 We note that the publication's editorial team ultimately decides whether to publish or reject submitted papers. 
3 
identifies the Beneficiary as "Panelist 4," it does not demonstrate that her role as panelist involved 
participation as a judge of the work of others in her field. Nor is there evidence showing that her 
participation in this conference rendered her internationally recognized as outstanding. 
An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine 
if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for this classification. 5 Here, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's level of review is indicative of or consistent 
with being recognized internationally as outstanding in her academic area. For example, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the stature or ranking of Vikalpa: Journal for Decision Makers or Economic 
Modelling relative to other journals in the field. 
Furthermore, in many scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process 
through which articles are selected for publication or presentation at conferences. Participation in the 
peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in her academic field. Without evidence that sets the Beneficiary apart from 
others in the field, such as evidence that she has completed reviews for a substantial number of 
distinguished journals or conferences relative to others in her field, served in editorial positions for 
highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired evaluation committees for reputable conferences, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's peer review experience has resulted in, or is 
reflective of, recognition at an international level for being outstanding in the field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's~~ributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussing her research projects at L______J L_J and the Petitioner. 6 For example, regardilng th[ 
Beneficiary's work analyzing! \in India, I l professor at 
asserted that the Beneficiary's work showed ' I skilled jobs that are most likely to b~ I I I have the lowest share in employment, whereasl I jobs have much higher shares 
in employment." I I further stated that the Beneficiary's findings indicated "the share 
ofl I jobs has been increasing over the eriod under consideration at the expense 
of I jobs" and that although "the share of ·obs is low, it does not reflect 
a substantial decline over the period." While~---~noted that the Beneficiary published this 
work in Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2016), the record does not indicate that her findings 
have been extensively cited, have impacted the field of economics in a substantial way, or have 
otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. 7 
In regard to the Beneficia 's research involv~mpact oti l firm-level and worker-
level outcomes professor atl__J stated that the Beneficiary examined "how~ 
an can affect key economic variables like employment and wages ofc:==J 
I kyorkers." I I explained that the Beneficiary's work "was able to show that 
strongl lexist between I workers an~~--~~nputs for plants importing high-
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 19 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area). 
6 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 The Petitioner submitted November 2019 information from Google Scholar indicating that this article has not received 
any citations. 
4 
~-__.linputs." 8 He further indicated that the Beneficia 's research is "important from a policy 
perspective as it shows how.__ _______________ ---;---~~~-row labor policy I 
can incorporate these predictions while charting schemes for providin'-'- ____ ___.to workers." 
I l however, did not offer specific examples of how the Beneficiary's work has been utilized in 
formulating economic policy or has otherwise influenced the field at a level commensurate with being 
internationally recognized as outstanding. 
Furthermore,~---------' professor at I !University, asserted that the Beneficiary 
"demonstrated usin an innovative strate for 
increased the wa9es and employment of 
skilled worker[s] in comparison to their unskilled peers." While I j further stated that this 
work "provides unique insight for policy makers that enables them to make significantly more 
informed policy decisions abou~ I with regards to the employment o±: and demand for, 
skilled workers," he did not further elaborate and identify which policy decisions have been affected 
by Beneficiary's research. Nor does the record contain corroborating evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary's strategy fo_,__ _____________ ___. has been recognized internationally 
as outstanding in the field of international economics, technology, and development. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's work relating to .__ ________ ____.changes, .... I ____ _. 
I 19 associate rofessor atl I Universit , indicated that the Beneficiar 's research "results 
est tha 
.__ ___________ __, plants." 10 In addition,----~==~~~=~~=.... 
work helps "to explain the mechanism behind the relative " 
and "emphasizes th .__ _______________ ____.workers in response to .__ ___ ~ 
reform," but her statements are insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's findings have 
influenced the field of economics in a substantial way that signifies international recognition or 
outstanding achievement in the field. 
Likewise,~-----=---.......,.......,.....-....,........ professor ,a.,........L..J..LLLJ"-C:.L..,._..._..>.LJ... _________ __., discussed the 
Beneficiary's work examining the impact o on firms and 
workers. He stated that the Beneficiary's research identified "the cause of.__ _____ _. from 
existing research on thel I workers." ~ I further indicated that the 
Beneficiary's findings "provided valuable insight on how_ I 
workers a~d how labor policy can incorporate these predictions while charting schemes for 
providing L___J workers." We recognize that research must add information to the pool of 
knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic 
credit, but not every research finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field renders an 
individual's work as outstanding or internationally recognized in her academic area. The letters of 
8 
The Beneficiary published these findings in a paper, entitled '--------------------~ 
I I in Applied Economics (2018). The November 2019 information fi-om 
QaagJe Scqolar shows that this article has receivep...=..hL.pne citation (a self-citation by the Beneficiary). 
{._ __ ___.] ,,;tated that she previously worked atL__J and that the Beneficiary "was a Ph.D. student in International 
Economics atc=J under my guidance through June 2013." .-----------------------, 
10 The Beneficiary published these findings in a paper, entitled.._ ....... ------ ....... ---~---- ......... - ........... 
I I in 2013. The November 2019 information from Google Scholar shows that 
this paper has received only five citations since its publication in 2013. 
5 
support offered by the Petitioner do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the 
record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the 
overall academic field, rather than by a solicited few, as substantially influential or otherwise 
indicative of international recognition. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary has participated in 18 conferences, and has published a book 
chapter, seven journal articles, and four working papers since 2005. As authoring scholarly articles is 
often inherent to the work of professors and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the 
influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that 
her work has had on the field and whether her articles demonstrate that she is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 11 In response to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner 
submitted November 2019 information from Goo le Scholar indicatin that the Beneficia 's three 
highest,........=L...'1.1...LJ.L.U:C..:,.........::"-1.1..1.J...J.J:CLJ....L _________________________ ---,1 
2013 
and 
(2018) each received 13, 5, and 3 citations, 
'-------,-----,----,-..-----,-----------,---,------,,------,-.---,-----' 
respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles 
were self-citations by the Beneficiary or her coauthors. 13 
Regarding the Beneficiary's citation rate, the Petitioner states: "According to the Scimago website, 
the top-ranking journal in Economics, Econometrics and Finance, American Economic Journal: 
Macroeconomics, has an average of only 3.4 citations per article." 14 The Petitioner further contends: 
"Therefore, when viewed in the proper context, [the Beneficiary's] publications have comparable or 
even higher citation rates than Economics papers published in the top-ranking journals in the field." 
The Scimago ranking for American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics lists average citations per 
document in a two-year period as 3.40. Based on this metric, only one of the Petitioner's papers has 
an above average citation rate when compared to articles published in the aforementioned journal. 
Regardless, the Beneficiary has not published any articles in that journal. Moreover, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that papers with just an above average citation rate are necessarily internationally 
recognized in the academic field as outstanding. Nor has the Petitioner indicated whether it factored 
in any self-citations in compiling the Beneficiary's particular citation rate. 15 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has taken 
some notice of her work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by 
her published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 20 (stating that an individual's authorship of articles should 
be evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
12 The Petitioner did not demonstrate how many of these citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of 
initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
13 The record also includes Scimago rankings identifying the top journals in "Economics, Econometrics and Finance," but 
the Petitioner has not shown that her work was published in any of the listed journals. 
14 Two of the top-six ranked journals, Journal of Supply Chain Management and American Economic Journal: Applied 
Economics, list average citations per document in a two-year period as 4.91 and 7.78, respectively. 
15 That a publication bears a high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does 
not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate that the individual's research is 
internationally recognized as outstanding. 
6 
being recognized internationally in her field. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the amount of citations to the Beneficiary's work represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
As documentation of published material in professional publications written b others about the 
Beneficia 's work the Petitioner submitted an article entitled ;:.::.,......::.:;:=.::=..::"---..-------I 
16 This article discusse and "whethe is a vehicle for 
L----....------------'-----=-=-, or a threat to such ' It also introduces I ,I 
~-------~ that were presented as part ofth '--------~ The Beneficiary's work 
is mentioned in a single paragraph within the three-page introduction. In additipn the Petitioner 
provided the "Comments and Discussion" section that follows the Beneficiar andl I's 
article in India Policy Forum 2012-13. Their article appears on and the "Comments 
and Discussion" section relating to their article immediately follows on The record 
also includes a book review of 17 in the South Asia 
Economic Journal. This nine-page book review of 
includes a brief summary of I ,I which was co._a_u_t_h_o-re_d_b_y_t_h_e_B_e_n_e_fi-1c--i-ar_y ___ F_u_rt_h_e_rm_o_r_e,-t-h~e 
Petitioner submitted the "Introduction" section of Journal of International and Global Studies 
------------~ 2012) that discusses the "essays, review essay, and book reviews" 
presented in that issue. The Introduction section consisting of three pages) includes a single paragraph 
summarizing the Beneficiary's article in th .__ ___ _.2012 issue. The Petitioner, however, has not 
demonstrated that these examples of published material show that the Beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the field of international economics, technology, and development. 
The Petitioner also submitted examples of several articles that cited to the Beneficiary's papers. The 
submitted articles are about the authors' own research and not the Beneficiary's work. See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). Regardless, a review of those articles does not show the significance of her 
research or demonstrate that it has widel im acted the field. 18 For instance, the Petitioner rovided 
an article, entitled ~-----------------------------~ 
(Telecommunications Policy) that references the Beneficiary's paper in India Policy Forum. The 
Beneficiary's paper is mentioned among several previous studies which observe tha~ I 
.__ __ .-------,... __________________ - ________ ____, and "that the 
use of has the potential to influence manufacturing performance positively." This article in 
Telecommunications Policy does not highlight the Beneficiary's work as outstanding, nor does it 
distinguish the Beneficiary's written work from the 60 other referenced papers. 
Another article presented by the Petitioner, entitled.__ __________________ ~ 
I i(Pac~fic Asia Conference on Information Systems 2018 
Proceedings) cites to the Beneficiary's paper in in India Policy Forum. The article's authors mention 
the Beneficiary's paper among three examples of 'I I I ~ This article in Pac~fic Asia Conference on Information Systems 2018 Proceedings does not 
differentiate the Beneficiary's work from the more than 30 other papers referenced in the article. 
16 The date of this mat~rial was not :rrided as required bY. the regul~tion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
17 The Beneficiary and,__ __ ___,,,,,.....wrote about India inl of this book. 
18 Although we discuss representative sample aiiicles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
While the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled researcher, the Petitioner has not 
established that she stands apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based 
on international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of the Beneficiary's 
work in the field of international economics, technology, and development, including evidence of her 
published research articles, citations to those articles by other researchers, her service as a peer 
reviewer, published material about her work, and the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude that 
this documentation does not sufficiently establish that she has been internationally recognized as an 
outstanding researcher or professor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary 
criteria, and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A review of the totality of 
the evidence, however, does not establish that she is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in her academic field. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8