dismissed EB-1B Case: Nanotechnology

identifling data deleasdm 
prevent clearly unm@ 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Departn~ent of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: LIN 07 165 53072 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 8 luua 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
V 
%ert P. Wiemann, Chief 
- Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 07 165 53072 
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 land grant teaching and research university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a 
research assistant professor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had 
offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing. The director also 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, the petitioner overcomes the director's valid concern that the record did not contain a job 
offer issued to the beneficiary. For the reasons discussed below, however, we uphold the director's 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated that beneficiary's eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
a 
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 theUnited 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 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 3 
(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. 
Job Offer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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: 
(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 offeving 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. 
(Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary 11 11 (7th ed. 1999) 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 terrns, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an 
acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract." Black's Law Dictionary does not 
define "offeror" or "offeree." The online law dictionary by American Lawyer Media (ALM), available 
at www.law.com, defines offer as "a specific proposal to enter into an agreement with another. An 
offer is essential to the formation of an enforceable contract. An offer and acceptance of the offer 
creates the contract." Significantly, the same dictionary defines offeree as "a person or entity to 
whom an offev to enter into a contract is made by another (the offeror)," and offeror as "a person or 
entity who makes a specific proposal to another (the offeree) to enter into a contract." (Emphasis 
added.) 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it 
be made to the offeree, not a third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made 
"to the beneficiary" would simply be redundant. Thus, a letter addressed to Citizenship and 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 4 
Immigration Services (CIS) afirming the beneficiary's employment is not a job offer within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for 
a term of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily 
have an expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for 
termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the proposed employment was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter from Payroll supe&isor and 
Immigration Representative for Employment at the petitioning university, addressed to CIS, confirming 
the beneficiary's employment with the petitioner as a research assistant professor. This document does 
not constitute a job offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary. On May 30, 2007, the director 
requested "a copy of the offer by [the petitioner] to [the beneficiary]." 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 Department Head and Director of 
Research in the petitioner's Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, addressed to 
"whom it may concern" once again confirming the beneficiary's employment with the petitioner as a 
research assistant professor. 
The director concluded that the petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence, a copy of the 
actual job offer letter issued by the petitioner to the beneficiary. On appeal, the petitioner submitted the 
actual job offer letter issued by the petitioner to the beneficiary on February 15, 2007, which predates 
the filing of the petition. The letter offers the beneficiary the "permanent" position of Research 
Assistant Professor and asserts that the petitioner complies with the regulatory definition of 
"permanent" at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2). 
While the petitioner did not submit this offer in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, we are satisfied that the petitioner made a good faith to comply with that request as the 
petitioner understood the request. Thus, we will consider the job offer submitted on appeal. 
In promulgating the final regulation, the Immigration and Naturalization Services, now CIS, 
recognized that it is unusual for colleges and universities to place researchers in tenured or tenure- 
track positions. Thus, the commentary to the final rule accepts that research positions "having no 
fiwed term and in which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of permanent employment" 
as comparable. (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60899 (Nov. 29, 1991). We are satisfied 
that the petitioner had offered the beneficiary the position of Research Assistant Professor prior to 
the date of filing and that the position is "permanent" as defined at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(2). 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 5 
International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had 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 May 21, 2007 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of nanotechnology. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three 
years of research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been 
recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
The 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 beneficiary must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the 
controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence 
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 
More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 
199l)(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary received the Young Scientist Award for 
the Presentation of an Excellent Paper from the Hokuriku-Shinetsu Chapter of the Japan Society of 
Applied Physics, was a finalist for the Young Scientist by the Indian Science Congress Association and 
received a senior research fellowship from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in 
India. The Young Scientist award from the Indian Science Congress Association is limited to those 32 
1 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 6 
years old or younger. The CSIR senior research fellowship is designed to provide opportunities "to 
bright young men and women for training in methods of research under the expert guidance of faculty 
members/scientists working in University DepartmentsAVational Laboratories and Institutes." The 
umer age limit for CSIR Senior Research Fellowshi~s is 32 vears old. Finallv. one of the ~etitioner's 
I I u ." 
references, professor of the university of ~oiama asserts that the beneficib received 
a Monbusho Research Fellowship Award from the Japanese government, which served as a Ph.D. 
scholarship and research and travel grant. 
In his request for additional evidence, the director stated that the record did not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary's awards were "major prizes or awards" as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). The petitioner's response does not address this criterion. The director concluded 
that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The petitioner does not 
address this criterion on appeal. 
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 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. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Scholarships are generally based on past academic achievement, not for accomplishments in a field of 
endeavor. While 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(A) references outstanding achievements in one's academic 
field, 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for 
study." The definition does not include typical bases for scholarships, such as grade point average and 
class standing. It remains, academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. Rather, 
academic study is training for a future career in an academic field. As such, scholarships in recognition 
of academic achievement, such as grade point average, are insufficient. Scholarships are simply not 
evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high academic achievements in 
comparison with other students. 
Similarly, experienced experts do not compete for age-limited awards, fellowships and competitive 
postdoctoral appointments. Thus, they do not suggest that a beneficiary is internationally 
recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 7 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in Sigma Xi, the American Physical 
Society, the Japan Society of Applied Physics and the Indian Physics Association. While the record 
reflects that Sigma Xi recognizes "noteworthy contributions in research," the petitioner did not submit 
the membership requirements for any of the other associations of which the beneficiary is a member. 
The petitioner does not address this criterion in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence or on appeal. 
A noteworthy achievement is not necessarily an outstanding achievement. For example, an earned 
doctoral degree and a small number of published articles are not outstanding achievements. 
In light of the above, the record does not establish 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 ihe title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessaly translation. 
The petitioner relies on articles that cite the beneficiary's research and "articles" on the Internet about 
the beneficiary's research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The 
director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that this evidence constituted published 
material in professional publications primarily about the beneficiary's work. On appeal, the petitioner 
references a graph documenting visitors to the websites that carried "commentary" on the beneficiary's 
work. The graph shows the "daily reach (percentage)" of these sites but does not reflect the actual 
number of visitors. 
Articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the 
beneficiary. As such, they cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary. 
The petitioner also submitted "Researchers Control Chemical Reactions One Molecule at a Time," 
posted on the websites www.spacedaily.com, www.sciencenewsdaily.org, www.scienceblog.com, 
innovations-report.com and www.physorg.com. This "commentary," repeated verbatim on all five 
Internet sites, carries no byline. The identical language and lack of a byline strongly suggests that this 
"commentary" is actually a press release compiled and distributed by the beneficiary's employer at the 
time rather than independent journalistic coverage of or commentary on the beneficiary's work. The 
record contains no evidence regarding whether these Internet sites limit the press releases posted to 
their sites. Self-serving press releases on websites that permit researchers to announce their latest 
findings cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 8 
 ina all^, the petitioner submitted the science news brief entitled "Chemical Reactions, One Molecule at 
a Time," available at www.world-science.net. Once again, while the language does not match the other 
press releases, the brief lacks a byline. The record lacks evidence regarding how many articles are 
briefed on this site. Thus, we cannot determine whether the inclusion of this brief on this site sets the 
beneficiary apart from his peers. Finally, we note that the brief does not mention the beneficiary by 
name. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets 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 field. 
The record reflects that, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary has refereed articles for the Journal of 
Physics D: Applied Physics, Physica Status Solidi and the Journal of Materials: Materials in 
Electronics, In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that referees for Institute of Physics journals "are carehlly selected from the international 
research community." The director concluded that the beneficiary's participation in the widespread 
manuscript review process cannot meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 
beneficiary received referees requests from difference journals and conferences demonstrates that the 
beneficiary has the "considerable understanding of the entire scientific discipline." 
The petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility 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 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Thus, we will only 
consider those reviews performed as of that date. We cannot ignore that scientific journals 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 his field, such as evidence that he 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. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientrfic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
The director noted that the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 224 (2006-2007 
ed.)2 provides that college and university faculty "may perform experiments; collect and analyze data; 
and examine original documents, literature, and other source material. From this process, they arrive at 
conclusions, and publish their findings in scholarly journals, books and electronic media." Further 
down on the same page, the publication states that faculty members at universities "normally spend a 
significant part of their time doing research." Id. The director then concluded that the petitioner had 
2 
 The director quoted an earlier edition of this publication. 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 9 
not demonstrated that the beneficiary's research contributions were sufficient to meet this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner notes the submission of reference letters, citations, requests to review manuscripts 
and the press releases mentioned above. 
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 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. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. The regulation 
at issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. Id. 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. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of international recognition. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Commr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may even give less 
weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of international 
recognition and vague claims of .contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner 
through his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from 
t 
 independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to 
a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based 
solely on this review. 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 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 10 
individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting 
that recognition. 
All of the letters submitted in this matter are from the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues. 
Such letters are important in explaining the beneficiary's role on various projects, but cannot, by 
themselves, establish that the beneficiary is recognized beyond his colleagues. 
 We interpret 
international recognition as requiring more than simply having worked in more than one country and, 
thus, having international colleagues who are familiar with your work. 
The beneficiary obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Toyama in 2001 under the direc 
[Upon graduating, the beneficiary joined the laboratory of. 
the University ot ~azfokia,-~iverside. In 2004, the beneficiary joined 
'P-"YY"" 
er for 
Accelerated Applications at the Nanoscale (CAAN) under the supervision of 
asserts that the beneficiary became a key member of the 
(STM) and molecular beam epitaxy laboratory at the University of Toyarna. 
circuits, growth of high-quality InSb films on Si substrates is complicated by the "lattice mismatch" 
between the two materials. The beneficiary "developed methods to grow high quality InSb films on Si 
substrates without buffer layers using molecular beam epitaxy." The beneficiary then "discovered 
several complex surface reconstructions formed by 
 While - 
asserts that this work won "appreciation from his peers," 
 oes not provide any examples 
of how the beneficiary's work is being applied in the 
 impacted the field. 
asserts that the beneficiary was the second postdoctoral researcher to join his group and 
contributed to the development of a STM-based single molecule manipulation system. 
asserts that the beneficiary's work in the laboratory ultimately "led to his pioneering stu d y on the 
development of structure-reactivity relationships in organic molecules." This work was published in 
the Proceedings ofthe National 
 in 2004 and was the subject of the press releases 
posted on various Internet sites. 
 asserts that the beneficiary's work in this area "attracted 
wide attention fiom [the] 
 years later when the petition was filed, however, 
this work had yet to be cited in a single article. - fails to provide any examples of 
independent researchers utilizing the beneficiary's work in this area. 
asserts that the beneficiary is currently working at CAAN on nanotechnology programs to 
develop nanosensors and gas sensors for gas detection, bio-warfare agent detection and malaria 
pathogen detection. sserts that this work is "expected to improve homeland security and 
the safety of defense personnel" and that the beneficiary is important to the timely completion of the 
work. asserts that the beneficiary has applied his earlier work, published in the 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, toward the development of gas sensors. 
 Dr. 
. u - 
does not, however, identify any specific contribution the benekciary has already made on 
these projects or explain how such contributions have already impacted the field. 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 11 
The remaining letters, all from the benefici 
 f colleagues, provide similar 
information to that discussed above. In addition, 
 , Diversity Coordinator for the 
petitioner's College of Engineering, asserts that the beneficiary conducted a three-month workshop for 
high school students as part of the petitioner's Flandreau Indian School Success Academy, a program 
for Native American high schools. While the beneficiary's participation in this program may reflect on 
his character, it does not demonstrate his intemational recognition as an outstanding researcher. 
Finally, in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted letters 
from the U.S. Army Research Office expressing an interest in reviewing a research proposal from the 
beneficiary. These letters postdate the filing of the petition and demonstrate the promise of the 
beneficiary's proposals rather than the influence of his past work. 
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, 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. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work garnered international recognition in the 
field as outstanding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored four published articles and several 
abstracts. The petitioner also presented his work at several conferences. The director concluded that 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the 
appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship 
during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's 
work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a hll-time academic andlor 
research career." In addition, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 172 (2006- 
2007 ed.) asserts that written communication skills are necessary for physicists because the job often 
requires the researcher to "write research papers." As quoted above, the handbook also provides that 
university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their 
findings. Id. at 224. In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do 
research and publish their findings." Id. at 225. 
 This information reinforces our position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of intemational recognition; we must 
consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
LIN 07 165 53072 
Page 12 
While the petitioner asserts on appeal that the beneficiary has been cited 55 times, at issue is the 
number of citations as of the date of filing in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
 Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that several of the 
beneficiary's articles have been cited, often by coauthors. While self-citation by a coauthor is a normal 
and expected process, it cannot establish the beneficiary's recognition beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues. The most citations recorded for any one article as of the date of filing was seven, and only 
three of those citations are by independent research teams. This citation record does not set the 
beneficiary apart from his peers. Thus, we withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
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.