dismissed EB-1B Case: International Macroeconomics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16004636 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 30, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a university , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher 
in the field of international macroeconomics . 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 his 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. 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. 1 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 his Ph.D. in Economics from the University.__ __ ~---~~---' in 
December 2012. From 2012 until 2016, the Beneficiary served as an Assistant Professor of Economics 
at I I University i~ !Canada. The Beneficiary has been employed as an Assistant 
Professor of Economics in the Petitioner's Department of Economics since August 2016. 2 
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 his 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 he 
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's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence 3, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he 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. 
1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 The Beneficiary also received an appointment as al !Fellow in the Department of Economics a~~--~ 
University from September 2019 until July 2020. 
3 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& 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 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 4 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the preponderance of the evidence "establishes that [the 
Beneficiary] is internationally recognized as outstanding in his field." It asserts that the Beneficiary's 
"review work is for the very best journals within his field" and that his "authorship includes work 
published in top-ranked journals." The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary's published "work 
has been recognized internationally through hundreds of citations and at a rate that places some of his 
work among the most cited in the field of Economics." It further states that the Director disregarded 
the letters of support "attesting to the significance and international recognition of [the Beneficiary's] 
research." Additionally, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary "won the 20161 I Prize" 
and received an invitation to join the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 
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 Petitioner 
submitted documentation indicating that he has reviewed papers for American Economic Review 
(three), 5 Review of Economic Studies (two), Journal of Monetary Economics (three), Journal of 
International Economics (three), Journal of the European Economic Association (five), American 
Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (four), 6 Economic Journal (one), International Economic 
Review (three), Review of Economic Dynamics (three), and Journal of Economic Dynamics and 
Control (three). 7 The record further indicates that the Beneficiary has reviewed papers for European 
Economic Review (one), Journal of Development Economics (one), Journal of Money, Credit and 
Banking (one), International Monetary Fund Economic Review (one), Economic Inquiry (one), 
Economic Letters (two), Canadian Journal of Economics (one), North American Journal of 
Economics and Finance (one), and International Finance (one). Therefore, from 2013 up until the 
4 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activities, published research, citation evidence, and National Bureau of Economic Research affiliation, and explained why 
that evidence, as palt of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as 
outstanding at the international level. 
5 One of these reviews for American Economic Review was completed inc=]2020 and post-dates the filing of the petition. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). 
6 One of these reviews for American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics was completed ire=] 2020 and post-dates the 
filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
7 One of these reviews for Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control was completed inl J 2020 and post-dates 
the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
3 
time of filing the petition, the Beneficiary had peer reviewed 3 7 manuscripts for 19 different journals 
in his field. 
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. 8 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 his 
academic field. 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's considerable peer review work and the rankings of the 
journals he served support a determination that he is internationally recognized as outstanding. The 
record includes journal rankings from Google Scholar indicating that many of the journals for which 
he has served as a peer reviewer are ranked in the top twenty in their respective subject matter sub­
categories in terms of their "h-5 index," a measure related to the journals' respective impact factors. 
For instance, the Petitioner provided Google Scholar rankings listing American Economic Review as 
1st, Review of Economic Studies as 8th, Economic Journal as 9th, Journal of International Economics 
as 11th, Journal of Monetary Economics as 12th, Journal of Development Economics as 13th, 
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics as 16th, Journal of the European Economic 
Association as 17th, and European Economic Review as 19th among "Economics" journals. 
However, the record does not contain sufficient support for the Petitioner's claim that "the review 
work done by [the Beneficiary] is at the highest level and is outstanding in his field." The Petitioner 
did not, for example, provide evidence that the specific journals that invited the Beneficiary to serve 
as a peer reviewer reserve those invitations for researchers who are recognized internatio~ 
outstanding in the academic field. ~-----__. an associate professor of economics atL__J 
University, who indicated that she has "known [the Beneficiary] though interactions with him at 
academic conferences and seminars," provided a letter in which she stated: 
[The Beneficiary's] research accomplishments and reputation in International Finance 
and Macroeconomics have been recognized by world leading journals in Economics 
like the American Economic Review, the Review of Economic Studies, and the Journal 
of Monetary Economics, among others. These scientific outlets invited him to review 
the work of experts in his field. It is an honor to be invited to serve as a reviewer for 
such journals and only scientists who are recognized as international experts in their 
field are selected as reviewers for them. 
We do not question! l's opinion that the Beneficiary's activities as a peer reviewer demonstrate 
his acknowledged expertise in economics, particularly in international finance and macroeconomics, 
and his stature as a valued and active researcher in this field. At issue here is the extent to which the 
Beneficiary's peer review activities have required, reflected, or resulted in his being recognized 
internationally as outstanding in his field. As noted, the Petitioner did not establish the various 
8 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
4 
journals' requirements for selection of peer reviewers, and therefore we are unable to evaluate the 
Beneficiary's peer review activities in light of those requirements. For example, reviewing 
manuscripts for journals that select peer reviewers based on subject matter expertise would not provide 
strong support for the petition, because possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower 
threshold than being recognized internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Therefore, although the record shows that the Beneficiary has reviewed numerous manuscripts for 
reputable journals, it does not demonstrate how his peer review activity compares to or differentiates 
him from his peers in the field. Similarly, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has received any international recognition for his service as a peer reviewer. Without this 
or other evidence differentiating him from others in his field, 9 the Petitioner has not established how 
the Beneficiary's peer review experience contributes to establishing that he is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in his academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a November 2015 email from a program officer with the Research 
Grants & Partnership Division of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 
(SSHRC) asking the Beneficiary to assist "with an assessment of an application submitted to the 
Insight Grants funding opportunity by means of an online assessment. . . . We ask that you review the 
research project, along with the CV(s) of the applicant and co-applicants, by completing the online 
assessment form." A January 2016 follow-up email from the program officer to the Beneficiary noted 
that once assessments are completed, they "have to be sent to the adjudication committee" which 
issues a final recommendation. In her letter,I I asserted that "SSHRC serves in Canada in a 
similar role to the one that the National Science Foundation serves in the United States. Only 
prominent scholars in their fields get invited to serve as reviewers for such prestigious granting 
agencies, and the fact that [the Beneficiary] has served as one is indicative of his standing as a 
prominent scholar in Economics." The Petitioner did not, however, provide corroborating evidence 
from the SSHRC indicating that it reserves invitations to provide online assessments oflnsight Grants 
applications for "prominent scholars in their fields" or those who are recognized internationally as 
outstanding in the academic field. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary's 
completion of an online assessment for SSHRC sets the Beneficiary apart as outstanding in his field 
or otherwise gamers him a level of attention indicative of international recognition. 
The Petitioner also provided an August 2019 Spanish language email from .... I _______ __, 
~--------------------~ to the Beneficiary requesting that he review 
a research proposal, but this document was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation. 
Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete 
and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Id. Regardless, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that reviewing a research proposal 
forl I signifies eminence and distinction based on international recognition. 
9 For instance, many of the Beneficiary's references have served in editorial ositions for highly regarded journals, 
including I I who worked as a L...-------r-----,__ ____ ____J for American Economic 
Review. Likewisq I has served as an.__ ____ _, of the Journal of Development Economics 
and as a member of the Board of Editors for Journal of International Economics. Additionally, I I I I I bf the IMF Economic Review,! I of the Journal of International 
Economics, and a.__ __ ~of American Economic Review. 
5 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussing his research projects atl I Univysity andlthe Petitioner. 1° For example, regarding 
the Beneficiary's research involvin~ ~ stated that the Beneficiary "and his co-
authors found that I I can explam approximately 80% of the interest premium paid by 
emerging economies" and that "it can also increase substantially the volatility of the economies' 
borrowing costs."1 7 further indicated that the Beneficiary's proposed solution for this problem 
"is to write I rwith al I: the return depends on how well ( or bad) the borrowing 
economy is doing in other credit markets," but she did not offer specific examples of how the 
Beneficiary's proposed solution of.__ ___________ __, has been implemented to reduce 
defaults in emerging economies or has otherwise influenced his field at a level commensurate with 
being internationally recognized as outstanding. 
Regarding the Beneficia 's research relating to debt exchangesJ I a professor of 
economics at University, asserted that the Beneficiary and his co-authors presented an 
of '-------~exchanres in which "opportunities for I I 
reductions arise because they imply a decline in ~------~j risk." In addition, I 
explained that the Beneficiary's work showed "that even though these! I are optimal at 
the time of thq lthey can bd O lfrom an I I perspective." WhilB 
I I further stated that the Beneficiary's findings "highlight a cost of initiatives that facilitate 
I L" the record does not show that the Beneficiary'd lhas been has widely 
affected his field or has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as 
outstanding. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's work involving I ~ crises, I l a professor 
of economics atl !university, stated that he has "extensively cited publications authored by 
[the Beneficiary], who is internationally recognized for his significant contributions throu h his work 
pertaining to International Macroeconomics. His work in the field of 1s 
majorly significant and extremely important and relevant." asserted that the Beneficiary 
and his co-authors showed "that eliminating.__ ____ ~could reduce the I I 
probability considerably and res~able welfare gains," as well as described ways "in which a 
policymaker could eliminate theL___J problem and benefit from these gains." I I did not 
further elaborate or discuss whether the Beneficiary's findings have been implemented beyond 
informing the research of others in the same field, and if so, the extent of their application. For 
example, he does not offer examples of policymakers who have implemented the Beneficiary's 
specific economic strategies. Whilel !praised the Beneficiary's research as "important and 
relevant," he did not sufficiently detail in what ways the Beneficiary's findings have already advanced 
the state of research in the academic field or explain how the Beneficiary's work has already influenced 
the wider field beyond those who have directly cited his articles. 
In addition,! ~ professor at the .__ ________ __,,11 asserted that the 
Beneficiary "is a talented and groundbreaking economist with extraordinary ability who will 
10 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered eac.,....h~o=n=e·-----~ 
11 I noted that she previously served as a professor at the University of.__ ______ ~ where the 
Beneficiary received his Ph.D. She stated: "I co-chaired [the Beneficia1y's] Ph.D. dissertation in Economics at the 
6 
undoubtedly continue to advance scientific breakthroughs in Economics in the United States, in 
particular International Macroeconomics." She further indicated that the Beneficiary "has unique 
training, talent, skills, and accomplishments in International Finance and Open-Economy 
macroeconomics. I ts statements, however, are not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's findings have influenced the field of international macroeconomics in a substantial way 
that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in his field. 
Furthermore,~----------~ a professor of economics at University ofl I ~--~I stated that the Beneficiary's "research contributions have been published in high-ranking 
international journals in the field of Economics, including the Journal of Political Economy and the 
Journal of Monetary Economics." While 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, not every research finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field renders an individual's 
work as outstanding or internationally recognized in his academic area. 
~-------'I also indicated that the Beneficiary has given "invited talks and seminars at the World 
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and various Federal Reserve banks, among many others. 
Invitations to deliver these talks are limited to individuals who have demonstrated significant research 
accomplishments and are recognized outstanding in their field at the international level." Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations, however, does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of 
proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff1d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d 
Cir. 1990). The Petitioner did not, for example, provide evidence from the specific organizations that 
invited the Beneficiary to speak indicating that they reserve their invitations for researchers who are 
recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. The Beneficiary's participation in 
invited talks and seminars demonstrates that his research findings were shared with others in his field, 
but without documenting the impact of his presented research, such participation is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that his work is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 
The Petitioner also rovided three letters written in 2015 in sup ort of the Beneficiary's 1._ ____ _, 
for the 2016 Prize by the Department of Economics at University. For instance, 
.__ ______ ___.a professor at the University o .__ _____ ~indicated that the Beneficiary's 
"research output in a short period of three years since finishing his Ph.D. has been impressive." 
Likewise,! , 1:::i senior economist with the Federal Reserve Bank ofl l, 12 
stated: "Since [the Beneficiary's] arrival tol I he has published several papers ... and 
generated a new set of projects. . . . The Beneficia 's] work is also of great relevance for current 
policy discussions on the effects of on the banking sector, domestic credit and 
output." Additionally,'----------~ a professor of economics at the University of 
I 113 asserted: "I rank [the Beneficiary] among the best students I enjoyed working with 
during my time atl I His publication record and the projects he has [i]n the pipeline 
are a clear indication of his value and potential. I wholeheartedly support his nomination for the 
University of.__ ______ ___. where he graduated in 2012. During our time at the University o~ I rthe 
Beneficiary] was also my research assistant." 
12 I I noted that the Beneficiary "was enrolled in the graduate computational economics class that I used to 
teach at the University ofl t' I I also indicated that he was ·'part of [the Beneficiary's] dissertation 
committee." 
131 I indicated that he "served as the chair of [the Beneficiary's] thesis committee." 
7 
~-............ I Prize!" The aforementioned statements froml l I I and~I ----~ 
however, are not sufficient to show that the Beneficiary's work has had a meaningful impact in his 
academic field or has otherwise been recognized internationally as outstanding in the area of 
macroeconomics. 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters of support show "the significance and 
international recognition of [the Beneficiary's] research." The expert testimonials offered by the 
Petitioner, however, 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. 
Department of Economics, and rofessor,.........___---,.___J University, mentioning 
that the Reneficiary was a recipient of a 2016~~~ Prize. stated: "When he was at 
~---~I University, the Beneficia was the 2016 economics winner ofthd I 
Prize, awarded by th 'I I further indicated that that 
Beneficiary "has received the 2016 ~--------~Prize in Economic Science,~ 
prestigious award given annually to outstanding professors who are affiliated to an L___J 
university." 
In addition to the aforementioned letters froml I an~ I the Petitioner submitted recent 
information from thel I Universities discussing the eligibility criteria for I I I !Prizes: 
[T]hd I Government established a fund to award I I Prizes 
annually to up to five outstanding researchers or scholars who are in the early stages of 
their careers and a~ !universities. The prizes, each of which is valued at $20,000, 
will be conferred in the fall ofc=J They are available in the areas of Physics, 
Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Economic Science, broadly 
defined. 
Furthermore, "to be eligible for an award, an applicant must:" 
1. be normally resident in~I --~ 
2. have received their doctoral degree from any recognized university in the world on or after 
September 1, 2016, or, if the doctoral degree has not yet been awarded, be confident that they 
will have completed all degree requirements by May 31 I I 
3. and either be planning to continue to post-doctoral studies, or hold a faculty appointment, in a 
recognized publicly assisted university in I I 
The information from thel I Universities is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary'~ I Prize in Economic Science is commensurate with "major prizes or awards for 
outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). The aforementioned 
information indicates that this provincial prize is limited to those "who are in the early stages of their 
careers and atl luniversities" rather than more experienced researchers and those who work at 
8 
universities outside ofl The Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence showing the 
Beneficiary's prize's stature in the economics field or its international significance. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that this provincial prize is commensurate with being recognized internationally as 
outstanding in the academic field. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary's publication record renders him internationally 
recognized as outstanding in his field. The record indicates that, at the time of filing the petition, the 
Beneficiary had authored five journal articles, three working papers, and a policy paper since 2011. 
The Petitioner provided journal rankings from Google Scholar for two of the journals in which the 
Beneficiary has published his work. This information listed Journal of Monetary Economics as 2nd 
among "Economic Policy" journals and Journal of Political Economy as 5th among "Economics" 
journals. 
A high ranking or impact factor reflects a publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, 
show the influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has had an 
impact within the field. Further, the evidence in the record does not establish that publication in a 
journal with a high impact factor alone is sufficient to demonstrate that a beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 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 his work has 
had on the field and whether his articles demonstrate that he is internationally recognized as 
outstanding in the academic field. 14 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's December 2019 Google Scholar profile 
showing that his research articles had received 295 cumulative citations. This information from 
Goo le Scholar farther indicated that the Beneficiar 's four hi hest cited articles entitled D 
L,------------,--l (2016), 2018 , 
--~---------~(2014), and.___ ______________ ___. 
(2016) each received 110, 108, 47, and 6 citations, respectively. 15 The Petitioner did not specify ....,_ _ _. 
how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by the Beneficiary or his 
coauthors. 
The Petitioner contends that some of the Beneficiary's individual publications have been cited at a 
rate that renders him internationally recognized as outstanding his field. The record includes an 
"In Cites Essential Science Indicators" chart published by Clarivate Analytics in 2019. This evidence 
shows "baseline" citation rates in a small number of broad fields for the years 2009 through 2019, as 
well citation figures by percentile for the same fields and years. The Petitioner indicates that based on 
this data, I ~ "is in the top 0.10% of all articles published in 
2016 in the general field of Economics & Business" and that ~-------------~ "is in the top 0.01 % percent of all articles published in 2018 in the general field of Economics & 
Business." 
14 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
15 The Beneficiary's remaining articles were each cited three times or less. 
9 
In her letter submitted in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), ~I----~ 
stated that others "have cited [the Beneficiary's] research publications over 320 times. While the 
number may seem low in comparison to others who have been in the field for many more years than 
[the Beneficiary], I can personally attest to the significance of his research and the impact it has had 
on an international level in our field." I I did not indicate how many of these additional 
citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C .F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
I I also reiterated that the Beneficiary's 2018 article, entitled j I I t "has been cited 122 times making it one of the most cited papers in the field of 
Economics for that year as it falls in the 0.01 % of economics papers published in 2018." 
The evidence demonstrates that two of the Beneficiary's individual articles have been cited at a rate 
that is well above average in his field. The comparative ranking of his individual papers to baseline 
or average citation rates, however, does not automatically establish that he is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 16 The Petitioner has not demonstrated how citation 
to the Beneficiary's publications, individually or collectively, compares to researchers who are 
recognized internationally as outstanding in the field of economics. 
In addition to the Clarivate Analytics metrics discussed above, the Petitioner provided "a list of recent 
I !Fellows" who participated in the same fellowship program as the Beneficiary atl I 
University, but a few years earlier than the Beneficiary's appointment term. From this list of 32 
"recentj I Fellows," the Petitioner selected just five individuals and presented their Google 
Scholar citation profiles. The Petitioner emphasized that their citation "profiles compare favorably" 
to the number of citations received by the Beneficiary. The submitted profiles were those of assistant 
professors in economics (at one public and four private U.S. universities) who had accrued total 
citations to their published work that ranged from 189 to 564 citations. The evidence shows that the 
Beneficiary had accumulated more cumulative citations than two out of the five researchers that the 
Petitioner specifically selected as a basis for comparison. Furthermore, while the Petitioner submitted 
copies of these individuals' Google Scholar profiles, it did not explain how this evidence supports a 
determination that any of them are internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 17 
The Beneficiary's citation evidence indicates that he has been a productive researcher during his career 
thus far, and that others in the field have noticed his work by citing to his publications. However, the 
Petitioner did not show that the citations to the Beneficiary's research represent attention at a level 
consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). Despite the Petitioner's reliance on metrics and data relating to citation rates, it did 
not, for instance, compare the Beneficiary's citations to others in his field of endeavor that are 
internationally recognized as outstanding. We have taken the Beneficiary's publication and citation 
16 For instance. according to the data from Clarivate Analytics, "Economics & Business" papers published in 2019 that 
received only 9 citations were in the top .10%. A supporting explanation regarding the reported citation rates indicates 
that "a percentile indicates how a paper has performed relative to others in its field, year and document type and is therefore 
a normalized indicator." The publisher does not claim that such percentile figures are intended to provide information 
regarding a given author's standing in a particular field. 
17 In the decision denying the petition, the Director pointed out that limiting "comparison to those who are early in their 
career" does not offer an appropriate basis for comparison. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
how the number of citations to the Beneficiary's ·'work reflects that he is recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
academic field. You have not provided. for example, independent, objective evidence that compares his citations with 
those of outstanding. internationally recognized researchers in the field." 
10 
record into consideration, but the Petitioner cannot rely primarily on that record to set the Beneficiary 
apart from others in the field as outstanding without other persuasive evidence of his international 
recognition. While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field 
has taken some notice of his work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations 
received by his published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention 
commensurate with being recognized internationally as outstanding. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of 
the Act. 
In response to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner submitted a May 1, 2020 email from I l's 
Director of Development welcoming the Beneficiary as an affiliate ofl I Additionally, in his 
letter! lnoted that the Beneficiary was invited "to become a Faculty Research Fellow" (FRF) 
at I I Dr. Aguiar farther asserted that j I researchers are appointed through a highly 
competitive process that requires a nomination" and that "[ c ]andidates are evaluated based on their 
research records." The Petitioner also submitted information aboutl I from its website, which 
states: "Mostl ~affiliated researchers are either Faculty Research Fellows (FRFs) or Research 
Associates (RAs). Faculty Research Fellows are typically junior scholars. Research Associates, 
whose appointments are approved by the I I Board of Directors, hold tenured positions at their 
home institutions." The Beneficiary's acceptance as arJ I ;iffiliate, however, post-dates the filing 
of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). Regardless, the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
froml I showing that the Beneficiary's FRF level of appointment, which is described b~ I 
as "typically junior scholars," required outstanding achievements. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a list it compiled of internet links to seven syllabi that identify 
the Beneficiary's research papers as part of the reading material for university coursework. One of 
these syllabi is from the BeneficiaJ's alma mater (University ofl D and two are from courses 
taught by I I and Dr. I who both served on the Beneficiary's dissertation 
committee. While this list indicates that the Beneficiary's research papers have received some 
attention in the academic field, the evidence falls short of rendering him internationally recognized as 
outstanding in macroeconomics. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled researcher, the Petitioner has not 
established that he 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 macroeconomics, including evidence of his I . I Prize, his research 
articles, citations to those articles by others in the field, his service as a peer reviewer, hisl I 
affiliation, and the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude that this documentation does not 
sufficiently establish that he has been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the 
field. 
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 he is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
11 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12