dismissed EB-1B Case: Mechanical Engineering

(b)(6)
Date: fEB 0 8 2~t&ce: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship anti Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals orric c (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 20'J0 
Washingtl)n, DC 2052'!-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(B) of t~e Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1153(h )(1 )(13) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
he advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have addiJional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~· · · 
,t?:ifl" "· 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)' ' 
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 filed this immigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an out~tanding 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(B). The petitioner, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, is self-described 
as a company engaged in scientific research and development. 1 The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a researcher/mechanical engineering specialist. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the 
outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel contends the director 
applied an improper standard in determining whether the beneficiary had attained the outstanding 
level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher: Counsel asserts that 
the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary 's eligibility for 
classification as an outstanding researcher. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. In support of 
its brief, the petitioner submits documentary evidence which has previously been submitted into the 
record. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the record fails to establish 
that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition. Specifically, when we simply "count" the 
evidence submitted, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under two of the regulatory 
criteria as required , judging the work of others and scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R . 
§§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the final merits determination, however, much of the 
evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria reflects routine duties or accomplishments in 
the field that do not, as of the date of filing, set the beneficiary apart in the academic community 
through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the 
regulatory criteria? Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 
5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record lacks the actual job offer issued by the petitioner 
to the beneficiary, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). An application or petition that fails to 
comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the 
Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in. the initial decision. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001 ), aff'd, 345 F.3d 
1 The petitioner has submitted its Articles of Organization which reveal it was organized in 2006, "To perform the 
contract with the United States Department of Energy for the management and operation of 
The articles reveal that management of the petitioner is vested in one manager , the 
2 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
(b)(6)
t'agc J 
683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I. Law 
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, 
(II) 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 full-time in research activities and has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
II. Job Offer from Qualifying Employer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be 
in the form of a letter from: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the 
alien a permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The 
department, division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least 
three persons full-time in research positions, and that it has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
The petitioner has not submitted its job offer to the beneficiary. Instead, the petitioner submitted 
a letter from , Senior Human Resource & Immigration Specialist, addressed to 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), affirming that the petitioner has submitted a 
job offer to the beneficiary, stating "[the petitioner] has offered [the beneficiary] permanent 
employment in the full-time research position of Mechanical Engineering Specialist at 
Black 's Law Dictionary 1189 (9
1
h ed. 2009) defines "offer" as "the act 
or an instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a 
contract on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand 
that an acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract" and defines "offeree" as 
"[ o]ne to whom an offer is made." In addition, Black 's Law Dictionary defines "offeror" as 
"[o]ne who makes an offer. " !d. at 1190. 
In light of the above , the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the offeree, not a 
third party. As such, regulatory language requirin that the offer be made "to the beneficiary" 
would simply be redundant. Thus, the letter from addressed to USCIS affirming that the 
petitioner has submitted a job offer to the beneficiary is not an offer of employment within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. The record does not contain an offer of employment from the 
petitioner addressed to the beneficiary. While the AAO does not question the credibility of 
the petitioner has not explained why the AAO should accept assertions of the fact 
of the offer of employment in lieu of the offer of employment itself, which is required initial 
evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[ e ]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists 
the following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least 
two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) 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; 
(D) 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; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to 
the academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholar) y 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
a similar classi fication set forth at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court 
took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet two of the given evid entiary 
criteria. With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court conclud ed that 
while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted 
to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits 
determination." !d. at 1'121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 3 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did) ," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
3 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requiremeJ~ts 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(vi) (comp arable to 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
(b)(6)
Page b 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). 
/d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then," if 
qualifying, considered in the context of a final merits determination. 4 While involving a different 
classification than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the 
court's reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center 
decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing theAAO's de novo authority). 
IV. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 11, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as researcher who is 
recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. The petitioner has submitted 
documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C. F. R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 5 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assocwtwns in the academic field which 
require outstanding achievements of their members 
The director concluded that the beneficiary's membership in the 
does not qualify as evidence of the beneficiary's membership in associations which require 
outstanding achievements in the academic field. Neither counsel nor the petitioner challenges that 
conclusion on appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned that claim. See Sepulveda v. U.S. 
Ally Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). Nevertheless, upon review, the AAO concurs. with 
the director's conclusion that the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
' 
4 
The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under three 
criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, requires qualifying 
evidence under only two criteria. 
5 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
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 petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed paper submissions for 
professional conferences and symposia, as well as manuscripts for professional journals such as 
the 
This 
evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the 
nature of these duties may be and will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted the following: seven reference letters (two from the 
beneficiary's immediate circle of coauthors and colleagues); and documentation from 
GoogleScholar showing that twelve articles co-authored by the beneficiary have been cited a total of 
21 times. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the 
beneficiary's contributions themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That being 
said , .the plain language of the regulation does not simpl y require original research , but an original 
"research contribution. " Had the regulation contemplated merely the submission of original 
research , it would have said so, and not have included the extra word "contribution. " Moreover , the 
plain language of the regulation requires that the contribution be "to the academic field" rather than 
an individual laboratory or institution. 
The beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators . See Kazarian, 
596 F3d at 1122. The citation history will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored articles which have been published in journal s 
and at conferences and symposia in the academic field, and many of the reference letters refer to 
this fact. The regulations , however, include a separate criterion for scholarly 
articles at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that 
the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. 
(We will consider the articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). Even if we considered the 
original nature of the beneficiary's research to qualify it under the criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), and we do not, whether or not the contributions are indicative of the 
beneficiary's international recognition in the field is a valid consideration under our final merits 
determination. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
We also acknowledge that the beneficiary reviewed manuscripts for professional publications, 
and paper submissions for symposia and conferences, and the reference letter of ~ 
refers in detail to this fact. The regulations, however, include a separate criterion for judging 
the work of others in the field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). If the regulations are to be interpreted 
with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary 
requirement from judging. (We have above considered evidence of the beneficiary's judgiilg 
experience under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)). Whether or not the beneficiary's judging 
experience is indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition in . the field is a valid 
consideration under our final merits determination. 
, a division leader, at a synchrotron radiation 
facility in states that he first became aware of the beneticiary's work when the beneficiary 
presented a ray-tracing simulation at a conceptual design review meeting at which the witness was 
on the review committee. He states that the beneficiary is a key person iri design and development 
of a sub-micron-focusing beamline for protein crystallography at the petitioning entity. He states 
that the beneficiary's simulation "gave an optimized guideline of approach to design and implement 
(sic) of this beamline." He states that the beneficiary's beamline "is the second sub-micron focusing 
beamline for protein crystallography, with more intensity and smaller beam size, in the world." 
However, does not state that he or his research facility has adopted the beneficiary's 
techniques, nor does he provide examples of independent research institutions utilizing the 
beneficiary's research findings. does not explain how the beneficiary's findings 
have impacted the academic field, nor does he assert that the beneficiary's research is becoming 
one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a contribution to the field 
as a whole. 
a staff member at the 
in states he met the beneficiary when the beneficiary "contacted me in 2010 to 
discuss ray-tracing with [the ray-tracing code] SHADOW." He states that the beneficiary's design 
for a sub-micron focusing beamline for macromolecular crystallography is similar to an existing 
beamline in Japan, but "with smaller size and greater intensity for the U.S." does not 
explain how the beneficiary's research contributions have impacted the academic field rather 
than simply the work of the beneficiary's employer. 
a professor at the states that he met the beneficiary at a 
professional conference . in 2009 where he states the beneficiary presented his research findings. He 
states that the beneficiary used synchrotron-x-ray-based ultrafast imaging technology and 
"characterized fuel sprays and correlated spray performance with fuel dynamics at inside of nozzle ." 
He also states the beneficiary used the . x-ray absorption technology to capture the density 
distribution of a diesel spray. He states that the beneficiary's research findings represent a major 
breakthrough in fuel spray research which "will lead to a better understanding of fuel combustion, 
and result in optimized designs of injection and combustion systems with reduced emissions ." 
However; speculation as to a future contribution or that the beneficiary's methodology will lead 
the way for others to use this methodology does not establish that the beneficiary's work has 
already contributed to the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
_ , professor at the -~---- · - ---- -~ - - - --- 0--- - ~--- -0 
met the beneficiary in 2009 at the same professional conference as and his letter is 
similar to , discussed above. 
, associate professor of physics at states he met the 
beneficiary in 2006 when the beneficiary was doing doctoral research and contacted him regarding 
one of the witness 's published papers . He states that the beneficiary's research methods in wave 
propagation and scattering in random media provide highly accurate simulation s of elastic w ~ tve 
scattering in materials, and significantly improve computational efficiency. However, 
does not provide examples of specific contributions or explain how those contributions have 
impacted the academic field rather than simply the work of the beneficiary's employer. 
a physicist and group leader at states he met the 
beneficiarv five "-ears ago, when the beneficiary joined his group as a postdoctoral research 
scientist. has co-authored several articles with the beneficiary. uses almost 
identical language to that of above , including stating that the beneficiary's rese arch 
tlndings "will lead to a better understanding of fuel combustion, and result in optimized designs of 
injection and combustion systems with reduced emissions." He states that as a result of the 
beneficiary's research findings the petitioner has "two contracts from two major engine and 
component manufacturing companies to investigate fuel injection systems for achieve (sic higher 
efficiency and lower emissions using both conventional and alternative fuels." However, 
doesnot explain how the beneficiary's research findings have impacted the academic fieTCI as a 
whole rather than simply the work of the petitioner. 
associate professor at states he was the beneficiary' s 
dissertation advisor at that institution, and one of the beneficiary's co-authors. He states the 
beneficiary's doctoral dissertation involved three-dimensional calculation and simulation in 
"designing noise absorption composite panel." He does not explain, however, how the 
beneficiary's dissertatiqn findings have contributed to the field other than to assert generally that the 
beneficiary 's research is "scientifically original. " 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 l&N Dec. 1328 , 1332 (BIA 
2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: · "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary eyidence, where available." /d. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-8-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above . 
United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USClS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for .the benefit sought. /d. The submi ssion 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibili .ty. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. /d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec . 158 , 165 
(Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)). · 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recogmt1on and 
vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 6 
Considering the letters and other evidence in .the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
beneficiary's research , while original, can be considered a contribution to the field as a whole . 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. . § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly booh or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted . the first page of several of the beneficiary's articles which have been 
published in journals and at conferences and symposia in the academic field. Thus, the petitioner 
has submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets two of the criteria that must 
be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically the 
petitioner submitted evidence to meet the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). 
The next step, however, is a final merits determination that considers whether the evidence is 
consistent with the statutory standard in this matter, international recognition as outstanding. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. · 
B. Final Merits Determination 
It is important to note at the outset 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 
6 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Clr. l99!i); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). · Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. ·1 YYO). 
(b)(6)
, 
f 
Page 11 
evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. Employment-Based 
Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 
(Nov. 29, 1991)). 
The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own cirde of collaborators. 
See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Counsel asserts, with the submission of the recommendation letter 
of the beneficiary's dissertation advisor , that the beneficiary's participation as a peer 
reviewer for certain professional journals and at certain professional conferences is evidence that he 
is internationally recognized as being outstanding in his field. As stated above, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed paper submissions for national and 
international professional symposia and conferences, as well as manuscripts for professional 
journals such as the 
The AAO cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and reI y 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 his field, such as evidence . that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
credits a small, elite group of referees, received independent requests from a substantial number 
of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of or consistent with international 
recognition. 
Regarding the beneficiary's original research, as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level 
of a contribution to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was 
"original" iil that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure 
the beneficiary a Master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. 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." 
In addition, the five independent references do not indicate that they learned of the beneficiary's 
work through the beneficiary's international reputation. Indeed, the record .lacks evidence that a 
significant number of members of the academic field outside of the beneficiary's immediate 
circle of colleagues are even aware of his work. 
The . beneficiary has published several articles in journals and at conferences and symposia in the 
academic field. While such publication demonstrates the promising nature of the bendiciary's 
work, of far greater importance in this proceeding is how the beneficiary ' s work was received 
upon publicatiQn. The petitioner submits, as evidence to establish the impact of the beneficiary's 
work, documentation from GoogleScholar showing that twelve articles co-authored by the 
beneficiary have been cited a total of 21 times. While evidence that the petitioner's work is widely 
cited can serve to establish the impact of this work, the record does not contain evidence that 
(b)(6). ' 
I 
Page 12• 
I 
indepeLent experts have consistently cited the beneficiary's work. In discussing the articles that 
cite thei beneficiary's work, counsel focuses on the number of citations in the aggregate. The record, 
however, does not establish that any one of the beneficiary's articles has garnered more than 
moderJte citation. In addition, a review of the one citing article submitted by the petitioner 
reveals 1 that it does not substantively discuss thebeneficiary's work, but cites his work among many. 
other ahthorities. The record does not contain evidence that independent experts have consistently 
cited o} relied upon the beneficiary's work, nor does the record contain other comparable evidence 
that d~monstrates that the beneficiary's publication record is consistent ~ith international 
recognition. 
I 
The pe!titioner provided a 2010 ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report for three of the 
journal ,s that have published the beneficiary's work, listing the impact factors of those journals. 
The pe;titioner also provided a 2011 SCimago JournaL Ranking for one of those journals. Counsel 
asserts ! that the journal ranking and the citation index impact factors of the journals that have 
publislled the beneficiary's work 
sufficientlyestablish their impact. The impact of a given journal 
is not ~ersuasiv e evidence of the impact of every article published in that journal. The fact that a 
I 
journal has a high overall impact factor does not imply that any one article in that journal has had 
a pro~ortionate impact. As stated above, the record does not contain evidence that the 
benefi¢iary's published articles have garnered widespread citations or other response in the 
acaded1ic field 
I 
In lig~t of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualif ying 
eviden~e, participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not 
garnet~d widespread citations or other response in the academic field, does not set the benefiCiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recogn
1
ition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria . 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. . I 
v. cohclusion 
The p~titioner has shown · that the beneficiary is a talented researcher/mechanical engine ering 
speciaFst, who has won the respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing 
some degree of exposure for his work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary 
I . 
to the level of an alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher or professor. 
I • 
Therefore , the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The ptition will be denied for the above-stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
ahd al~ernative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the bepefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, S U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here , that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
I ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.