dismissed EB-1B Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
I 
4' 1 P x,e-x 
irAva3ici1 ejL p":5:i'l21 2-1 $J euj 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
p pYL 'C CCIPY Services 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 0 4 2009 
LIN 07 217 52633 
IN RE: 
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. 8 1153(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Phn F. ~d&m 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the ernployment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a research and development facility for a multinational diversified conglomerate. It 
seeks to classiQ 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a mechanical engineer. 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief asserting that the director used the wrong standard in evaluating the 
evidence and that the petitioner met its burden of proof merely by submitting evidence relating to the 
regulatory criteria. For the reasons discussed below, counsel is not persuasive. Ultimately, the 
evidence submitted, especially of the beneficiary's accomplishments as of the date of filing, is not 
indicative of or even consistent with international recognition as outstanding. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record does not resolve whether the beneficiary actually 
received his Ph.D. As explained below, if he did not, he cannot include his research experience while 
working towards that degree as part of his required three years of experience. The AAO maintains 
plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 8 557@) ("On appeal from or 
review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janhz v. US. Dept. of 
Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
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 
(111) 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 andlor 
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 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 June 28, 2007 to classifL the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of mechanical 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. On his curriculum vitae, the beneficiary 
indicated that he received both his Ph.D. and his Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering in 
December 2004. The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's Master of Science from Florida 
International University dated December 8,2000. The petitioner also submitted the second page of the 
beneficiary's transcript from the University of Michigan. The second page, however, does not indicate 
whether or not the beneficiary actually received the degree. Rather, it indicates that the beneficiary took 
the preliminary examination in September 2004 and advanced to candidacy at that time. The transcript 
also indicates: "Dissertation: 29-APR-2005." The transcript does not indicate whether this notation 
means that the beneficiary's dissertation was accepted (as opposed to presented) on that date and he 
was allowed to graduate. As specified above, the beneficiary indicated that he received hs Ph.D. in 
December 2004, which is not the case as his dissertation was clearly incomplete as of that date. 
If the beneficiary had not received his Ph.D. as of the date of filing, according to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(ii), he cannot include any research conducted towards that degree as part of his 
required three years of experience. The record does not establish that the beneficiary had three years of 
non-student research experience as of the date of filing. This issue would need to be resolved in any 
future proceedings. 
Even assuming that the beneficiary did receive his Ph.D. prior to the date of filing, 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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the regulations do not require that the beneficiary be recognized 
internationally as outstanding in at least two criteria, but only the "submission of evidence in two 
categories." Counsel concludes that it is the combined evidence that demonstrates international 
recognition. Counsel firher asserts that the petitioner's burden is only to submit evidence in two of the 
six criteria and that if the evidence is "relevant, probative and credible," U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) determines if it is more likely than not that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding. Counsel then concludes that the director determined that the petitioner 
had not met its burden of proof (through submission of the required evidence) rather than considering 
whether the evidence was sufficient under the proper standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence. 
Counsel is not persuasive. 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, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). While we recognize 
that it is the ability to meet two criteria that establishes the necessary international recognition, two 
accomplishments that are inherent to the alien's field are not any more significant than one 
accomplishment that is inherent to the field. Rather, each accomplishment must be indicative of or 
consistent with international recognition if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. 
Significantly, as will be discussed in more detail below, the Department of Labor's 2008-2009 
Occupational Outlook Handbook's section on postsecondary teachers (professors) (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm on April 30, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), 
states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
doctoral programs training students for faculty positions require a dissertation based on original 
research. Id. Thus, under counsel's logic, every Ph.D. faculty member with three years of experience 
would satisfy the original contributions and scholarly articles criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) and 
(F) and, thus, would be eligible for the classification sought. In setting aside this first-preference 
Page 5 
classification for only those professors and researchers who are internationally recognized as 
outstanding, Congress clearly did not intend for every professor with a Ph.D. and three years of 
experience to qualify. Thus, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be evaluated in the 
context of what "accomplishrnents" are inherent to the field. 
While counsel cites Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-414 (1945) for the 
proposition that USCIS has no authority to interpret its own regulations if the meaning is plain, the case 
does not reach such a strict conclusion. Rather, the Supreme Court stated: 
Since this involves an interpretation of an administrative regulation a court must 
necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of 
the words used is in doubt. The intention of Congress or the principles of the 
Constitution in some situations may be relevant in the first instance in choosing 
between various constructions. But the ultimate criterion is the administrative 
interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or 
inconsistent with the regulation. 
Id. This concept is reiterated in more recent federal court decisions, with the caveat that where the 
regulation is not ambiguous, the plain language of the regulation is controlling. Ohio Valley 
Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2009). That said, 
these decisions discuss how much deference a federal court will give to an agency's interpretations 
of law and regulation. They do not preclude an agency from interpreting its own regulations, 
especially where the interpretations are consistent with those regulations. 
We are not persuaded that it is inconsistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(3)(i) to evaluate 
whether the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion is indicative of or at least consistent with 
international recognition. Federal courts have recognized that USCIS may consider the significance of 
evidence submitted to meet the regulatory criteria for the related classification, aliens of extraordinary 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, another first preference classification where the 
alien must meet at least three of ten criteria. See generally Yasar v. DHS, 2006 Westlaw 778623, *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) (upholding a finding that an alien did not meet the judging criterion 
because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alien's service for a private entity constituted 
evidence of an alien of "sustained national or international acclaim" that the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3) are designed to identify.) 
Other decisions, even those that have overturned findings that an alien was ineligible, have 
acknowledged that the mere submission of evidence relating to the regulatory criteria is insufficient. 
Russell v. INS, 2001 WL 11055 *6 (N. D. Ill. E. D. Jan. 4,2001) (upholding denial of the visa petition 
because the decision explained how the evidence was considered and rejected); Muni v. INS, 891 F. 
Supp. 440, 445-46 (N. D. Ill. E. D. 1995) (satisfaction of the three category production requirement 
does not mandate a finding that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition in his field); Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (the examiner 
Page 6 
must evaluate the quality, including the credibility,' of the evidence presented to determine if it, in 
fact, satisfies the criteria). 
In light of the above, the submission of evidence relating to the regulatory criteria does not end our 
inquiry and, thus, the director's evaluation of the evidence as to whether it set the beneficiary apart 
from his peers was not an error of law. We will evaluate the evidence below as to whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with international recognition as outstanding. The petitioner claims to have 
satisfied the following  riter ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic$eld. 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to hs 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 internationally as 
outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60897-01,60899 (Nov. 29, 1991 .) 
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. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Initially, counsel indicated that three exhibits documented the beneficiary's "honors." These exhibits 
include a third place 2004 Student Paper Award for the Laser Institute of America, evidence of 
inclusion in the 2004-2005 edition of The Chancellor's List limited to graduate students, and a 
discussion of research being performed by the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor on the University of 
Michigan's website. The director's request for additional evidence advised that student awards could 
not serve to meet this criterion. In response, the petitioner submitted a July 13, 2007 electronic mail 
invitation to be included in Who's Who in Science and Engineering. The invitation strongly promotes 
the purchase of the book. The petitioner also submitted a February 28, 2008, electronic mail message 
indicating that he had not responded to a request for his biography for the 2009 Who 's Who in America. 
The director concluded that the student paper award and inclusion in The Chancellor's List are both 
limited to students and, thus, could not serve to meet this criterion. The director further concluded that 
the beneficiary was not accepted into Who's Who until after the date of filing. 
1 
The court did not state or suggest that credibility was the only evaluation permissible, rather that it was but 
one permissible consideration. 
2 
 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. 
Page 7 
On appeal, counsel no longer asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion. We concur with the 
director. The beneficiary only competed against other students for the student paper award and 
inclusion in The Chancellor's List. As the most experienced and renowned members of the field do not 
compete for either recognition, we cannot conclude that they can serve to meet this criterion. 
We further concur with the director that any recognition that postdates the filing of the petition cannot 
be considered evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 5 103.2(b)(l), (1 2); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comrn'r. 1971). Regardless, the record does not 
reflect how many other individuals are included in these books, which are heavily promoted to those 
invited for inclusion. While the materials indicate that there is no obligation to purchase a book, the 
record lacks data regarding the number of individuals included who declined to purchase the book. The 
petitioner did not submit any objective evidence of the significance of an invitation for inclusion other 
than the company's own self-serving promotional materials designed to promote the sale of editions to 
those included in them. The order form for inclusion in Who's Who in Science and Engineering 
provides that a certificate of inclusion is provided fi-ee to those who purchase a book. Major awards do 
not typically require an expenditure of money for the award certificate. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe alien 5 membership in associations in the academic3eld which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of Sigma Xi. The materials about 
Sigma Xi submitted reveal that Sigma Xi invites to full membership those who have demonstrated a 
noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in research. A bbnoteworthy achievement" must be 
evidenced by "publication, patents, written reports or a thesis or dissertation, which must be available 
to the Committee on Admission if requested." A noteworthy achievement is not necessarily an 
outstanding achievement. In fact, the record reveals that the society does not take a particularly strict 
view of noteworthy achievements. 
The director concluded that the acceptance of basic research as a noteworthy achievement and the large 
membership size revealed that Sigma Xi is not restricted to those with outstanding achievements. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) does not restrict the size of the 
association and asserts that the director accepted that Sigma Xi requires outstanding achievements for 
membership. Thus, counsel asserts that the petitioner met its burden of proof under this criterion. 
First, we acknowledge that the size of an association is not determinative. Nevertheless, it cannot be 
credibly asserted that the size is irrelevant when considering how exclusive the association is. While 
the regulation may not explicitly restrict the size of the association, it is questionable that an association 
that boasts a large professional membership can also claim to limit its membership to only those with 
outstanding achievements. More significantly, the director did not, in fact, accept that Sigma Xi 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. Rather, the director concluded that the membership 
requirements were "fairly basic." We concur. A dissertation is required for all Ph.D. graduates and 
publication is not an outstanding achievement in the field of research. Thus, we concur with the 
director that the "noteworthy" achievements required for Sigma Xi membership do not rise to the level 
of outstanding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof because Sigma Xi clearly does not 
require outstanding achievements of its members. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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. 
Initially, counsel referenced seven articles as "published work about [the beneficiary]." The articles 
present original research performed by the authors or review the general area of research and include 
footnoted references to the beneficiary's articles. Two of the articles are self-citations by the 
petitioner's Ph.D. advisor. The director requested additional evidence, noting that articles referencing 
the beneficiary's work in footnotes are not "about" the beneficiary's work. In response, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that the beneficiary's work continues to be cited after the date of filing. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary was not the main focus of the articles and did not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary's work "warrants international recognition by others in distinguished 
publications and journals." On appeal, counsel asserts that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) 
does not require that the published materials be "solely" about the alien or that the alien is the main 
focus of the materials. Counsel then asserts that the director erred in referencing the purpose of the 
regulatory criteria because the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) is "clear." 
Counsel then faults the director for failing to consider the letters from the authors who cited the 
beneficiary's work. 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, we will only consider the citations that predate the filing of the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 
1971). Second, we agree with counsel that the plain language at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) is clear but 
find that it is counsel who is reaching an interpretation that is inconsistent with that plain language. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires published material "about" the alien's work. The 
word "about" is not ambiguous; the alien's work must be the subject of the published materials in order 
to meet this criterion. It cannot credibly be asserted that any of the articles are "about" the beneficiary's 
work any more than this decision can be said to be "about" Matter of Katigbak simply because that 
decision is referenced above. Rather, it is indisputable that the citing articles themselves are "about" 
the authors' own research or new work in the field in general. Some of the footnoted assertions are not 
even "about" the beneficiary's work, as his article is merely one of several articles cited for a single 
proposition. In order for the remaining citations to meet this criterion, we would need to conclude that 
every sentence within an article is its own published material, which would lead to absurd results.) The 
only rational interpretation of the phrase "published material" is that the article in its entirety, and not 
each individual sentence, constitutes the published material that must be "about" the alien. As the 
articles are not bbabout" the beneficiary's work, they cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
While not asserted by counsel or addressed by the director, we acknowledge that, as of the date of 
filing, the beneficiary had been invited to submit a biography for inclusion in The Chancellor's List and 
that the University of Michigan's website posted an article about the beneficiary's advisor that included 
a photograph of the beneficiary with other graduate students. The record lacks evidence The 
Chancellor's List addressed the beneficiary's work rather than his academic record. Regardless, the 
petitioner has also not demonstrated that the publication, created by a for-profit company promoting the 
sale of its own books to those it includes, constitutes a professional publication. Similarly, while we do 
not question the reputation of the University of Michigan, the petitioner has not demonstrated that in- 
house coverage of the work being performed by its own professors is consistent with international 
recognition rather than international exposure. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner did not submit the necessary 
evidence required to meet this criterion. 
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$eld. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that he had been requested to review manuscripts for the 
Journal of Laser Applications, the Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering and Numerical 
Heat Transfer. The petitioner submitted internet materials about two of these journals. According to 
these materials, the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Laser 
Applications. This journal also has four senior editors, two managing editors, an advisory board of six, 
a review board of three and an editorial board of 29. The Journal of Manufacturing Science and 
Engineering has 18 associate editors in addition to its Editor-in-Chief. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from 
- 
an associate editor for the Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering; I 
the Editor-in-Chief for Optical Engineering and, the "chairlorganizer" 
of the Energy Field Manufacturing (EFM) Symposium. 
asserts that he requested the beneficiary to evaluate a manuscript because the beneficiary is 
"one of the top experts worldwide in the area of laser direct metal depositions, which matches the 
subject of the manuscript." asserts that each paper in Optical Engineering is peer-reviewed 
by two referees selected based on technical expertise, knowledge of the topic, experience in the field 
and professional background. Finally, asserts that the symposium relies on peer-reviewers, 
3 
 Taken to its logical conclusion, counsel's assertion would result in the conclusion that a phonebook listing 
could serve to meet this criterion. 
Page 10 
which is why the beneficiary was invited to be a reviewer. 
 Mer asserts that the beneficiary is 
one of the top researchers in the world in laser materials additive manufacturing, but does not assert 
that only top researchers are invited to review abstracts. It appears that the beneficiary's reviews for 
this symposium postdate the filing of the petition. The petitioner also submitted a February 2007 
review request fiom Surjizce and Coatings Technology. The internet materials for this journal, 
submitted by the petitioner, reveal that it has four editors and 21 members of its editorial board. 
The director concluded that the letters did not explain how the beneficiary's review of manuscripts 
separated him from the numerous other researchers who participate in the peer-review process and 
noted that the review of abstracts for the EFM symposium postdated the filing of the petition. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) only requires evidence that 
the beneficiary has served as a judge of the work of others and that the evidence need not set the 
beneficiary apart fiom his peers. Regardless, counsel notes that states that the beneficiary was 
selected to review manuscripts because of his standing in the field. Counsel concludes that the 
petitioner "satisfied the 'preponderance of evidence' standard of proof in this case." 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be considered in 
the context of what is inherent in the field. We cannot ignore that scientific journals are pea reviewed 
and rely on numerous scientists to review submitted manuscripts. Thus, peer review is routine in the 
field; not every peer review is indicative of or consistent with international recognition on the part of 
the referee. 
As stated above, the journals for which the beneficiary has served as a reviewer have moderately sized 
editorial boards, of which the beneficiary is not a member. The record does not establish the number of 
peer-reviewers these journals utilize each year. Any claim to meet this criterion based on manuscript 
review must explain the significance of this participation in the context of the large number of 
manuscripts each of the many journals in the field receives and the fact that the journals routinely 
assign two reviewers for each manuscript. Significantly, the review invitations addressed to the 
beneficiary all request that if the beneficiary is unable to perform the review, he recommend an 
alternate reviewer. These requests do not ask for an explanation of what distinguishes the suggested 
alternate from any other member of the field. While we do not question sincerity, he does 
not support his assertion with objective information about the Journal of Manufacturing Science and 
Engineering, such as data indicating that the journal boasts a small group of elite reviewers. 
Significantly, the materials about this journal list the members of the editorial board, but not the 
reviewers. 
Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart fiom others in his field, such as evidence that, as of the 
date of filing, he had reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests 
fiom a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we 
cannot conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
Jield. 
The director concluded that the reference letters submitted were mostly fi-om the beneficiary's 
immediate circle of colleagues and could not demonstrate international recognition. On appeal, counsel 
asserts that eight of the 15 letters, including those exclusively addressing the previous criterion, were 
not fiom the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues. Counsel concludes that letters fi-om 
international experts are sufficient to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
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. 
6 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Thus, the mere authorship of 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. 
The petitioner relies on several reference letters. The opinions of experts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. 
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, USCIS 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; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS 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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identifl 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. Ultimately, evidence 
in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with international recognition should be 
able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that recognition. 
The beneficiary received his Bachelor of Science degree from Tsinghua University in China in 1997. 
In 2000, the beneficiary received his Master of Science degree from Florida International University. 
The petitioner attended the Ph.D. program at the University of Michigan. As stated above, however, it 
is not clear that the beneficiary actually received this degree. In March 2005, the beneficiary began 
working for the petitioner's laser processing laboratory. 
a former assistant professor at Florida International University, asserts that he 
recruited the beneficiary to that institution. He praises the beneficiary's abilities as a student but 
does not assert that the beneficiary's Master thesis was published or otherwise disseminated 
internationally. While asserts that the beneficiary's research at Florida International 
University was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), he provides no examples of how 
this work has influenced the field. 
, the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor at the University of Michigan, asserts that 
the beneficiary made important accomplishments in laser aided Direct Metal Deposition (DMD) in 
research funded by the &F and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Dr. 
asserts that the beneficiary's DMD research contributions "stand very solidly in both 
theoretical and experimental aspects and were invaluable in transitioning the DMD technology to 
industrial applications." does not identify any industrial entity utilizing this work and 
the record does not contain any letters from industry leaders confirming the beneficiary's influence 
on bringing DMD to the industry. 
also praises the beneficiary's work on a mathematical model for multi-material 
solidification during-DMD. 
 explains that this work formed the basis of the 
beneficiary's best student paper award. In addition, asserts that the beneficiary 
"developed a technique to monitor the defects during DMD process by monitoring the laser beam 
reflected from the laser melt pool." notes that this work was performed in 
collaboration with Spiricon, Inc. 
Page 13 
, Industrial Product Sales Manager for Spiricon, Inc., asserts that the company's 
collaboration with the beneficiary "produced valuable experimental results having important 
scientific and industrial impact in high power laser beam diagnostics and laser process quality 
control." asserts that reputation was the basis for the collaboration but 
that the beneficiary performed most of the key experiments. While asserts that a start-up 
company was formed to commercialize results with DMD, does not 
assert that this com an was formed after the beneficiary joined this research and as result of his 
work in this area. & further asserts that the beneficiary's work revealed the relation between 
the appearance of the contamination defects and the detected laser beam profiles, implicating "the 
implementation of laser beam analyzer in the director metal deposition process for more 
efficient quality monitoring and control." 
 does not explain how this work had already 
influenced the field. Moreover, as a product sales manager, it is not clear that he is an expert in the 
beneficiary's field. While lists a baccalaureate in engineering, his advanced degree is a 
Master of Business Administration (MBA). 
, an assistant professor at Michigan State University, asserts that he collaborated 
with the beneficiary on a joint research project for the Office of Naval Research (ONR) investigating 
the interaction between high power laser and metals in laser welding and laser cladding processes. 
asserts that the beneficiary's work on numerical modeling offers a cost-efficient way to better 
understand the complex physical phenomena involved in the laser cladding process, producing "the 
best numerical model that takes into account the complete physical phenomena in the coaxial powder 
injection laser cladding process, and produces very accurate and realistic results." While = 
asserts that the beneficiary's model is "very valuable in the laser cladding community" and has made 
a "huge impact on many industry applic~tions," he does not provide -any examples of its use at 
independent laboratories or in industry. 
, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a Coolidge Fellow with 
the petitioner, asserts that he was a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan, was invited to the 
beneficiary's defense of his Ph.D. thesis, and recruited the beneficiary to work for the petitioner, 
where 
 serves as the beneficiary's mentor. 
 further asserts that the beneficiary's 
work at the University of Michigan made "significant contributions to many aspects of the DMD 
process, such as the sophisticated numerical modeling of understanding the physics of DMD, 
thorough study of the environmental impact of DMD process, monitoring and control in DMD, [and] 
expanding DMD in manufacturing designed material microstructures." does not provide 
any examples of how this work has impacted the field. 
According to, the beneficiary is working on two projects for the petitioner, Laser Net 
Shape Manufacturing (LNSM) of aircraft engine compressor blades and blisk repairing by LNSM. 
provides little information about the beneficiary's work on compressor blades. Rather,- 
asserts that the beneficiary is leading the blisk repair project where he "developed a 
methodology to guild up solid blisk airfoils with adaptive toolpath deposition which resulting [sic] in 
better part surface roughness and sound material properties." finally asserts that this 
innovation has been "rated to file patents," but the record does not include any patent applications 
listing the beneficiary as an inventor. does not explain how this work has impacted the 
field. 
In resDonse to the director's reauest for additional evidence. the ~etitioner submitted a letter fiom Dr. 
- Lab ~ana~ei of the petitioner's Laser Ad Metrology Systems Lab. m 
discusses the history of the petitioner's laser cladding program and the importance of blisk repair. 
explains that the majority of the work on blisk repair was completed in 2006, with patents 
filed in 2007. does not explain the beneficiary's role on this project or the project's 
influence as of the date of filing. Some of this work was clearly completed after the date of filing, as 
asserts that the project improved the geometric accuracy for tool paths to .004 inches in late 
2007, after the date of filing. also discusses an article written to respond to a concern 
expressed in a 2007 report. It is not clear that this article predates the filing of the petition in June 
2007. Significantly, the article is not listed on the beneficiary's curriculum vitae and does not appear 
in the record. 
While the above letters are all fiom the beneficiary's collaborators, the petitioner did provide more 
independent letters. IJ a professor at Tsinghua university: asserts that he first 
learned of the beneficiary's work fiom a conference presentation by in 2004 and met 
the beneficiary at another conference in 2005. - further asserts that the beneficiary visited 
the Laser Processing Research Center at Tsinghua University in May 2006. - explains the 
importance of DMD, invented b in general and discusses the beneficiary's recent 
work in laser cladding. asserts that the beneficiary's work "is extremely valuable to 
identify the most significant factorsamong numerous laser cladding parameters, and [to] predict the 
geometric features of deposition so that an appropriate processing parameter window can be used for 
laser rapid manufacturing. - does not provide any examples of the beneficiary's models 
being used at independent institutions. Rather, - speculates that the beneficiary's model 
"ckbe easily extended to other laser rapid manufacturing systems, therefore [it] has very significant 
practical impacts on laser rapid manufacturing industries." 
- a professor at the University of Lincoln, asserts that he met the beneficiary at a 
conference in 2004. 
 asserts that the beneficiary's contributions include "the most 
comprehensive 3D numerical modeling work of laser powder deposition process which is the core 
technique of LNSM, manufacturing of designed material microstructure which has unique material 
properties that do not exist in nature materials . . . and rapid prototyping and repairing techniques of 
high performance aircraft engines [sic] parts.'' provides no examples of these models being 
used at independent institutions. Rather, speculates that the beneficiary's "research plan on 
the area of micro-fabrication will have huge impacts on manufacturing of Micro-Electro-Mechanical 
System (MEMS) which is widely used in electronic sensor, biomedical and military industries." 
-- - - - 
4 
 ~hil-'s time as a Ph.D. student at this institution overlapped with the beneficiary's time as an 
undergraduate student there, 
 explains that he met the beneficiary in 2005 at a conference. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner provided letters from four 
researchers who have cited the beneficiary's work. 
 Of the four letters, three are written by 
researchers who cited the beneficiary's work after the date of filing and the fourth is written by Dr. 
coauthor. 
an associate professor at the Chinese Institute of Mechanics, asserts that he further 
developed the beneficiary's model and used it in an extended parametric study with the verification 
of more experimental results. This work. however. was re~orted in an article coauthored with Dr. 
-;the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor and coauthor. he fact that 
 continues to 
expand on his own work (performed with the beneficiary), in collaboration with others, is not 
evidence that the beneficiary's work is independently recognized. 
- a research fellow at the University of Manchester, asserts that he discovered 
the beneficiary's research while researching his own work and cited one of the beneficiary's articles. 
asserts that the beneficiary's model is very valuable to the DMD community. Dr. 
article, which postdates the filing of the petition, reports on his own model of beam 
attenuation and powder heating during coaxial laser DMD. In the introduction, - 
discusses a different model that produced results relating to Gaussian laser intensity distribution and 
then cites the beneficiary's article and a collaboration between 
 and 
 as other 
models that "assumed Gaussian distribution along the powder stream during interaction with the 
laser beam." then concludes that "many of the models to date have ignored the region 
before the annular powder stream merges and applied a Gaussian powder distribution coaxial with 
the laser beam wherever interaction takes place. then goes on to expand on his own 
models. While does use a Gaussian assumption, he asserts that this relationship "has 
been shown in a large number of papers," including one by the beneficiary. The actual article by Dr. 
does not suggest that the beneficiary's work has been particularly influential other than 
contributing to the general pool of knowledge or that it is internationally recognized as outstanding. 
a senior research associate teacher at the French National Research Institute, asserts that 
he cited the beneficiary's work "as an important and rather unique contribution to the understanding 
of the DMD process. asserts that he used the beneficiary's model in his own work and it 
was a very useful tool. A coauthor, -, provides similar information. A review of the 
article reveals that and did indeed utilize the beneficiary's model. As stated 
above, however, 
 article postdates the filing of the petition. 
The new letters do not suggest that the beneficiary's models were widely utilized or internationally 
recognized as of the filing date. As discussed above, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Finally, beyond the letters, the petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary's articles had 
been cited. Initially, the petitioner submitted seven articles citing the beneficiary's work, two of 
which were self-cites by a coauthor. Five independent citations are not indicative of or consistent 
with international recognition as outstanding. We note that 
 claims to have been cited more 
than 40 times within five years. The petitioner does submit evidence of additional citations after the 
filing of the petition. This evidence does not relate to the beneficiary's influence as of the date of 
filing. Regardless, 
 been cited more than five times and one of those citations 
was a self citation by 
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, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary's work had been 
recognized internationally as outstanding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly booh or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
It is not clear that the director considered this criterion separately from the previous criterion, stating 
that the mere publication of authors was not indicative of a contribution of major ~i~nificance.~ The 
director does note the beneficiary's minimal citation record and conclude that the record lacks evidence 
that the beneficiary's articles are internationally recognized. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
regulation only requires evidence of publication in journals that are internationally circulated. 
Counsel is not persuasive. The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 
(accessed at www.bls.~ov/oco on April 30, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), 
provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos066.htm. The handbook expressly states 
that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 
research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for 
faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information 
reveals that original published research, whether arising fkom research at a university or private 
employer, does not set the researcher apart fkom faculty in that researcher's field. 
We concur with the director that the beneficiary's publication record by itself, several articles and 
conference presentations, is only indicative of international exposure. Without evidence that these 
articles have been recognized in the field, such as evidence of notable citation, we cannot conclude that 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. As discussed above, the beneficiary's citation record was minimal 
as of the date of filing. Even if we adopted counsel's interpretation, the beneficiary would meet only 
this single criterion. For the reasons discussed above, the beneficiary does not meet any other criteria. 
5 
As noted by counsel on appeal, the phrase "of major significance" does not appear in the regulations 
pertinent to this classification at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i). Compare 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.