dismissed EB-1B Case: Math Education

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: OCT 0 2 2008 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
' 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. 
'd 
%obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
-I 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a university. It seeks to classifL the beneficiary as an outstanding professor 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 permanently in the United States as an assistant professor. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in her academic field, as required for classification as an outstanding 
researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and new reference letters. For the reasons discussed below, we 
concur with the director. 
At the outset, we acknowledge the assertions by several references that there is a shortage of math 
education professionals, especially in early education. As stated in a case involving a lesser 
classification, the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 
I&N Dec. at 22 1. Ultimately, while we do not question the importance of the beneficiary's field or her 
qualifications for her position, the petitioner has not demonstrated the beneficiary's international 
recognition in the field. 
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, 
(IT) 
 for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(ID) 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 
hll-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
 , 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching and/or research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from former or current employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on March 7, 2005 to classifL the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of math education. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three 
years of teaching and/or research experience in the field as of that date. The beneficiary began teaching 
in August 2002. The director concluded that the beneficiary had not had full responsibility for the 
courses taught while a Ph.D. student prior to August 2002 and found that the petitioner had not 
demonstrated the necessary three years experience. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's 
research experience while a Ph.D. student should be considered. This assertion brings us to the issue of 
whether the beneficiary's work is recognized within the academic community as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling 
purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet 
these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 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. 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Initially, counsel asserted that the beneficiary meets four criteria 
that are not found in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets five of the six regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204'5(i)(3)(i). On appeal, counsel challenges the director's findings regarding three criteria. 
The criteria follow. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required evidence 
of a major international award. The final' rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word 'international' has been 
removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized intemationallyjas 
outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60897-0 1,60899 (November 29, 199 1 .) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a major 
award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards cannot 
 , 
serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. CJ: 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Counsel did not address this criterion in the initial brief. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, counsel lists research awards from the beneficiary's employer or school. The 
awards themselves are not part of the record. The director concluded that the petitioner had not 
established the significance of the research awards. On appeal, counsel does not challenge the 
director's conclusion that the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. We concur with the director and 
fk-ther note that the record lacks the awards themselves. The beneficiary's self-serving curriculum 
vitae and counsel's assertions are insufficient. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 
1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
Page 5 
Counsel initially asserted that the beneficiary is a member of "professional associations." 
 The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), however, does not simply require membership in professional 
associations. Rather, the associations must require outstanding achievements of their members. The 
petitioner initially submitted the beneficiary's membership card for the National Council of Teachers of 
Mathematics (NCTM). The beneficiary listed other memberships, but asserted that the associations did 
not issue membership cards. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The petitioner did not submit letters from the association or other types of evidence of membership. 
Thus, the only membership established is the beneficiary's membership in NCTM. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of the 
membership requirements for the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 
(PME), which is open to persons involved in active research in fktherance of the group's aims. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the associations of which the 
beneficiary is a member require outstanding achievements of their members. Counsel does not 
challenge this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. We fin-ther note that the petitioner 
did not submit evidence of all of the memberships claimed. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has ever asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion and the 
record contains no evidence relating to it. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academic field. 
The record reflects that the beneficiaj was a reviewer for the PME-NA 2004 Conference in Toronto in 
2004. 
 The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the significance of this 
responsibility. On appeal, counsel submits a letter from 
 , Editor-in-Chief of 
the Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Meeting of 
, selected as a reviewer of the Proceedings 
not, however, give the total number of reviewers. 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals and published conference proceedings are peer reviewed and 
rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every 
peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from 
others in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, 
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 6 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
Obviously, 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 b,eneficiary7s 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." 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the beneficiary's doctoral dissertation advisor at the University of 
Missouri, 
 Professor 
 asserts that the beneficiary was a member of a 
research team that "im lemented professional development projects for elementary classroom 
teachers." Professor asserts that the beneficiary made substantial contributions to the 
project and that her dissertation "was the primary vehicle for disseminating results from one of these 
projects," Professor 
 does not explain how these results have impacted the field of math 
education. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from the benefici 
 's facul 
 and student collaborators from the 
University of Missouri. While Associate Professor 
 asserts that the beneficiary has 
performed research in "topics of interest in math education throughout the United States," she does not 
explain how the beneficiary's work has influenced the field. 1 a former doctoral 
student at the University of Missouri, explains what the beneficiary earne w 1 e at the University of 
Missouri. He continues: 
Her research agenda has the potential to change the way elementary teachers think about 
their students' mathematical abilities. Moreover, it also offers a fresh model of how 
professional development of teachers could and should be done in every American 
Elementary School. 
Dr. , however, does not provide any examples of the beneficiary's work being implemented or 
otherwise explain how her work has already influenced the field. Professor 
 of the 
Missouri notes that the beneficiary has published and presented her findings. Professor 
f the same university provides similar information. The record, however, contains no 
evidence that the beneficiary's publications or presentations have been heavily cited, that they are 
assigned reading in math education courses in and outside of the United States or that they have served 
of the basis of math curricula in various locales. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated the impact 
of these publications and presentations. 
Department chair of the petitioner's Department of Mathematics, asserts that the 
benefici 
 's work addresses better teaching methods and the influence of teachers among themselves. 
Drdoes not, however, provide examples of the beneficiary's work being applied. Rather, he 
predicts that it "will have a substantial impact on the nation's ability to train teachers of mathematics." 
-. 
Professor of the petitioning institution, lists several contributions by the beneficiary 
and explains their significance. First, he asserts that she develops, revises and teaches "innovative 
mathematics courses for elementary teachers" and examines the reasoning and understanding by the 
teachers to improve the courses. He provides no examples, however, of school districts adopting 
curricula based on the beneficiary's courses. Second, Professor serts that the beneficiary's 
work is r 
m 
to providing professional development for current teachers. Once again, however, 
Professor 
 provides no examples of school districts applying the beneficiary's ideas in offering 
professional development based on the beneficiary's theories or assigning 'her articles as required 
reading. Third, ~rofessoasserts that the beneficiary's articles provide important knowledge to 
teachers and predicts that this work "has the potential to significantly impact research on student 
learning; in terms of reasoning; and iustification." As with his other claims of significance. Professor 
" " 
ails to support his conc1us;on with exam les of the beneficiary's publications being cited or 
assigned as required reading. Fourth, Professor 
 discusses the beneficiary's analysis of varying 
state curricula. While he asserts that this work has "strong potential for hture research as well as 
classroom practices and related policies in mathematics education," he does not assert that her work has 
already had this impact. Finally, Professor Hirsch discusses the beneficiary's international 
collaborations but does not explain how these collaborations have already proved influential in the 
field. 
Dr, an associate professor at the petitioning university, asserts that he is co-director 
of the Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum and that the beneficiary has begun a project for 
the center. Dr. es not assert that this work has already proved influential in the field. 
Dr. an assistant professor at the petitioning university, asserts that the beneficiary 
collaborated with colleagues at "multiple campuses" to develop and pilot innovative math 
curriculum for prospective elementary math teachers and that this program "reaches over one 
thousand prospective teachers a year." does not indicate that this program has garnered 
international or even national attention. 
All of the above letters are from the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues. While such letters 
are useful in explaining the details of the beneficiary's research, they cannot, by themselves, establish 
any international recognition. On appeal, the 
 submits letters from independent references. 
Dr. 
 an assistant professor at The Ohio State University, explains that he met the 
bene ~clary at a conference and that he and the bkneficiary have communicated about issues since that 
time. ~rmsserts that the beneficiary's work has been recognized nationally and internationally 
based on her publications and presentations. As stated above, however, no persuasive evidence has 
been submitted as to the impact of these publications and presentations. Specifically, the record lacks 
evidence 
 s been cited or is widely assigned as required reading for math educators. Dr. 
and Dr. 
 Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum and 
Director of the Department of Mathematics at Michigan State University, discuss pending publication 
of the beneficiary's work in book form. These letters do not establish the benefi&ry's%ternational 
recognition as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Comm. 1971). 
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 or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work garnered international recognition. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly booh or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary had authored 10 articles published in journals or 
conference proceeding compilations as of the date of filing. The director concluded that without 
evidence that the beneficiary's work had been cited, it could not be concluded that the beneficiary's 
published work had garnered international attention. On appeal, counsel asserts that the "field of 
mathematics education does not make a practice of tracking the citations of one's publications." 
Counsel notes that the beneficiary's references attest to the beneficiary's outstanding publication 
record. 
We concur with the director that the evidence submitted to meet this criterion must be indicative of or 
consistent with not only international exposure, but international recognition. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Matter 
of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. Counsel does not 
support her assertion regarding the lack of citations in the beneficiary's field with evidence that the 
top math education journals have low average citation rates. Moreover, the record does not contain 
other evidence of the impact of the beneficiary's articles, such as syllabi for math education courses 
in and outside of the United States listing the beneficiary's work as required reading or evidence that 
her published work has served as the basis for proposed standards in various locales. 
In light o'f the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of her collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for her work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international 
Page 9 
reputation 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. tj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.