dismissed EB-1B Case: Materials Science And Engineering

identifying dsae Meted to 
prevent W~Y unwarranted 
invmioa d p~d P~v~Y 
U.S. Department of IJorneland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. ?j 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
&/&0&4fl,54-- / 
r obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
"Wdministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner appealed that decision. On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
remanded the matter to the director for hrther consideration. The matter is now before the AAO on 
certification. The director's decision will be affirmed. 
The petitioner is a cubic nitride, diamond and polycrystalline supplier. 
 It seeks to classify the 
beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in 
the United States as an application development engineer. The director initially determined that the 
petitioner had not established that it had offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing. 
On appeal, counsel asserted that the original job offer did not exist and is not required initial evidence 
but submitted the previously lacking document. Thus, the AAO remanded the matter to the director for 
a determination as to whether the petitioner had established that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for classification as an outstanding 
researcher. 
On January 14, 2008, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary is recognized as outstanding in his academic field. The director certified that 
decision to the AAO pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.4(a)(l). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.4(a)(2), the 
director advised the petitioner that it could submit a brief or written statement to support the petition 
within 30 days. Subsequently, counsel submitted a brief and additional letter. For the reasons 
discussed below, we affirm the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority 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) within 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 
(III) 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 
hII-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 fill 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 current or former 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 March 21,2005 to class@ the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of materials science and engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary 
had at least three years of research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work 
has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. The beneficiary received his Ph.D. 
in August 2002, less than three years before the petition was filed. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(i)(3)(ii), quoted above, in order to rely on his research while working towards that advanced 
degree, he must demonstrate that his doctoral research was recognized within the academic field as 
outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 beneficiary 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. 
More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. 
 Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 
199l)(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assoczatio~zs in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in Sigma Xi as of 2004 and 
the Indiana Alpha Chapter of Tau Beta Pi as of 1999. The certificate from Tau Beta Pi recognizes the 
beneficiary's "scholarship and exemplary character while a student at Purdue University." (Emphasis 
added.) The initial evidence included a letter from Patrick Sculley, Executive Director of Sigma Xi, 
advising that Sigma Xi honors "those who have made noteworthy contributions in research." The 
initial evidence also included a letter from, Assistant Secretary Treasurer for Tau Beta Pi, 
advising that the society recognizes "outstanding achievement and exemplary character" and that there 
are 460,000 members of Tau Beta Pi. A "Fact Sheet" about Tau Beta Pi indicates that it recognizes 
"outstanding engineers" and lists "notable achievers" who are members. 
In response to the director's October 10, 2006 request for additional evidence, issued following the 
remand order by this office, the petitioner submitted Internet materials confirming that full membership 
in Sigma Xi is by nomination and requires a "noteworthy achievement." The materials further provide, 
however, that a noteworthy achievement "must be evidenced by publication as a first author on two 
articles published in a refereed journal, patents, written reports or a thesis or dissertation." The 
petitioner also submitted a list of Nobel Laureates who are members of Sigma Xi. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted Internet materials about Tau Beta Pi. These materials reflect that membership is 
by invitation of the collegiate chapter and that graduate students are required to be in the top fifth of 
their class or obtain a letter of recommendation from their academic advisor. On certification, counsel 
notes that neither honor society admits members based solely on the payment of dues. Moreover, 
counsel asserts that authoring an article is insufficient, the prospective member must be the primary 
investigator and author. Finally, counsel focuses on the requirements for Tau Beta Pi membership for 
practicing engineers, ignoring that the beneficiary was admitted as a student. 
We affirm the director's finding that neither honor society requires outstanding achievements of their 
members. The regulation does not simply require that the alien is a member of an association that 
requires more than the payment of dues. The associations must require outstanding achievements of 
their members. The regulatory criteria are to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher 
stands apart in the academic community. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Thus, we interpret "outstanding 
achievement" to mean more than a notable achievement for a student or recent graduate. The 
achievement must be an outstanding achievement in the academic community as a whole, which 
includes the most experienced faculty. The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
- 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
224 (2006-2007 ed.) indicates that university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing 
research and often publish their findings. In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the 
pressure to do research and publish their findings." Id. at 225. As such, we cannot conclude that the 
"noteworthy achievement" required for Sigma Xi membership, defined as primary authorship of two 
papers, written reports or a thesis or dissertation, is an outstanding achievement that sets the author 
apart from the academic community. 
Moreover, Tau Beta Pi's membership requirements, class standing and a recommendation from one's 
own academic advisor, are not outstanding achievements that set the member apart from the academic 
community. Finally, election by one's own collegiate chapter is not indicative of or consistent with 
international recognition as outstanding. 
That both societies include members who have won the Nobel Prize does not impart that distinction 
to the vast majority of their members who have not been so recognized. It remains, while neither 
society is open to any applicant who pays a fee, they simply do not require outstanding achievements 
of their members. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
$eld. 
The petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal 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 "unoriginal." 
As stated above, outstanding researchers should stand apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria 
to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Any Ph.D. thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. To conclude that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
Furthermore, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Thus, the mere authorship of original work in scholarly articles cannot serve as 
presumptive evidence to meet this criterion. To hold otherwise would render the regulatory 
requirement that a beneficiary meet at least two criteria meaningless. 
, Director of the Center for Materials Processing and Tribolo 
 at Purdue 
University, is the beneficiary's coauthor for all of his articles while at Purdue. 
 notes 
that the beneficiary's work at Purdue has been published and was funded by companies such as General 
Motors (GM). 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 from the scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. As stated 
above, publication of scholarly articles is a separate criterion and cannot serve as presumptive 
evidence to meet this criterion. Moreover, most, if not all, research receives funding. We are not 
persuaded that every Ph.D. candidate working on a funded research project must be presumed to 
have made contributions that are recognized internationally in the field as outstanding. 
explains that the beneficiary focused on developing novel methods for 
forms of thermal damage on surfaces of engine components, which is "of 
immense help to automotive components manufacturers, for instance, in eliminating costly re- 
working of damaged components and reducin the number of scrap parts arising from improper 
grinding procedures." According to most thermal damage is confined to very thin 
layers that are difficult to study, but the beneficiary developed methods that superseded prior 
methods b 
 tracking changes in surface characteristics with sub-micrometer resolution. 
 Dr. 
d further explains that the beneficiary's original grinding temperature measurement 
research enabled the beneficiary to subsequently develop " ound breakin computer models for 
accurate prediction and control of the thermal damage." 
 concludes that the 
beneficiary's models "obviate the need for complicated experimental setups when designing new 
production environments" and "are the best among those currently available." Dr. 
does not, however, assert that the beneficiary's models are being widely adopted or 
provide examples of industry adopting these models. 
, a former graduate research assistant at Purdue University while the beneficiary 
was a doctoral student there, provides somewhat more technical detail regarding the beneficiary's 
models and their benefits to the automotive industry. , Head of the School of 
Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University and one of the beneficiary's collaborators, 
provides a similar letter, concluding that the beneficia 's work " rovided a much-awaited 
confirmation of predictive temperature models." Neither nor however, 
provides examples of these models being utilized in industry. 
, a senior manufacturing engineer at GM, asserts that he supplied the beneficiary 
test materials and eaui~ment. As stated above. GM ~rovided some of the funding for the 
U 
beneficiary's Ph.D. research. 
 asserts that the deneficiary has produced superior models 
and that the information produced by the beneficiary "can be practically applied in manufacturing 
ize the non-productive time associated with grinding wheel preparation, for 
does not, however, even confirm that GM is using these models. Regardless, 
it can be expected that a contribution recognized as outstanding in the field would be in wider use 
beyond the company that funded the research. 
The final letter submitted initially is from a current Ph.D. student at Purdue. As noted in our remand 
order, the above letters are all from the beneficiary's collaborators and immediate colleagues. While 
such letters are important in providing details about the beneficiary's role in various projects, they 
cannot by themselves establish the beneficiary's international recognition as outstanding. 
In response to the director' 
 06 request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a new letter from 
-~ 
aduate of Purdue University, although his time 
there did not overlap with the beneficiary. 
 asserts that the beneficiary's Ph.D. dissertation 
used data to validate 
 model and that his results "make it possible to design grinding routines 
that minimize grinding waste and ensure the integrity of the mechanical properties of mission-critical 
components used in the aerospace and automotive industries." does not, however, provide 
examples of any aerospace or automotive industry using the beneficiary's models. 
On certification, the petitioner submits a second letter from I Dr. 
 reiterates that the 
beneficiary validated the results from 
I 
hl 
doctoral research but affirms that he and the 
beneficiary did not collaborate and that t eir time at Purdue University did not overlap. 
reaffirms that the beneficiary's work is novel and that his results "have a significant role in b etter 
explaining the phenomena occurring during abrasive processes." 
 further asserts that the 
beneficiary's measurements are importa 
w 
devising optimal and efficient grinding processes. 
Once again, while we do not contest that 
 is not one of the beneficiary's collaborators, Dr. Ju 
provides no examples of how the beneficiary's work has been applied beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of international recognition. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
 The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. 
at 795. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 
1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive letters in establishing 
international recognition. 
As of the date of filing, the beneficiary had authored four published articles and had presented his 
work at conferences. Initially, the petitioner provided no evidence that these works were influential, 
such as evidence that they were cited. In response to the director's October 10, 2006 request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that three of the beneficiary's articles had been 
cited. However, none of the articles had been cited more than four times, and three of those citations 
postdate the filing of the petition. On certification, the petitioner provides a self-serving list of 21 
citations for four of the beneficiary's articles, including 10 citations for one article. Fourteen of these 
21 citations postdate the filing of the petition. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $4 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Regardless, this citation record is not indicative of international 
recognition as outstanding. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary's presentation is listed on a website as 
"related literature." The petitioner has not demonstrated that this listing among numerous other 
articles on the subject is evidence that the beneficiary's work in particular is recognized as 
outstanding. 
Finally, on certification, the petitioner submitted electronic-mail messages reflecting that a Chinese 
publication had expressed interest in having one of the petitioner's articles translated into Chinese 
for publication in China. While the beneficiary responded that he would agree to the translation, 
there is no evidence that the Chinese publication ultimately published the article. Moreover, while 
such publication might establish more international exposure, it would not necessarily demonstrate 
that the paper represents a contribution that is internationally recognized as outstanding. 
In light of the above, we affirm the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that as of the date of filing, the beneficiary had authored four 
published articles and presented his work at conferences. The Association of American Universities' 
Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 31, 1998, 
set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this 
definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time 
academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish 
the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." Thus, this 
national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers 
who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or research career." Moreover, as stated above, the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 224 (2006-2007 ed.) provides that university 
faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their findings. In 
addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do research and publish their 
findings." Id. at 225. 
This information reinforces our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically 
evidence of international recognition. Even assuming that the beneficiary's work is productive for a 
Ph.D. student, we are not persuaded that publication in and of itself is indicative of or consistent with 
international recognition. Rather, we look to the community's response to the publications. On 
certification, counsel notes that researchers in several countries have cited the beneficiary. As stated 
above, however, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was well cited as of the date of 
$ling, the date as of which the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Thus, we affirm the director's conclusion 
that the beneficiary's publication record cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented 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 the level of an alien who is 
internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
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 decision of the 
director denying the petition will be affirmed. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision dated January 14,2008 is affirmed. The petition is denied.