dismissed EB-1B Case: Ophthalmology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave , N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
I 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUO 0 4 2008 
LIN 05 076 53791 
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: 
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. 
u. 
P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
'1 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a public 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 permanently in the United States as a 
Research Associate 11. 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 fiuther determined that the 
petitioner had not established that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his 
academic field, as required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel challenges both conclusions. While we find that the petitioner has offered the 
beneficiary a qualifjmg job, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that the, 
beneficiary is internationally recognized. Specifically, we find that the petitioner has established only 
that the beneficiary meets one of the regulatory criteAa, of which an alien must meet at least two. 
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 ~rofessors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) 
 the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and . 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) 
 for a 'tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(IT) 
 for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(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 
hll-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
Job Offer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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: 
 i 
(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; 
1 
(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. I 
(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 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." 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 offer 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 
Immigration Services (CIS) affirming the beneeciary's employment is not a job offer within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
 j 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(2), provides, I 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 emplojment unless there is good cause for 
termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the ro osed employment was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter fro-irector of the petitioner's eye center, 
addressed "To Whom it May Concern," asserting that the petitioner emplo ed the beneficiary as a 
Research Associate 11, a "fill-time permanent, scientific research osition." 
that the beneficiary has been continuously employed at the 
Yer states 
&since November 2001 and that it 
is the petitioner's will "continue to be employed at the -for 
the foreseeable future." continued employment is "contingent 
upon annual This document does not constitute a job offer 
from the petitioner to the beneficiary. On June 7, 2005, the director requested evidence that the 
petitioner had extended a permanent job offer to the beneficiary. 
submitted a November 13, 2004 letter addressed to the beneficiary from 
Resources Coordinator, for a fill-time 
also submitted a new letter fro 
hnding patters, "the probability that [the 
employee at the [petitioning university] is excellent." 
The director concluded that the beneficiary's position was contingent on funding and questioned 
whether it needed to be annually renewed or extended. On appeal, counsel asserted that the petitioner's 
assertions as to the indefinite nature of the beneficiary's position are the only evidence available. 
Counsel submitted twp subsequent briefs, the last one supported by a June 6, 2006 memorandum from 
~irector for Domestic Operations, CIS. 
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 "hav&zg no fixed term and in 
which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of permanent employment" as comparable. 
(Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60867,60899 (November 29, 1991). The petitioner has submitted the 
original job offer letter that predates the filing of the petition. Nothing in that letter contradicts the 
assertions the beneficiary's job has no fixed term or that the beneficiary enjoys an 
We are cognizant that college and university research positions 
are dependent on funding. Nothing in the job offer letter suggests that the beneficiary's 
 is 
funded by a specific grant with an ending date. Rather, the record suggests that the beneficiary's 
position is hded by continuous grants which the petitioner has a history of receiving. Thus, we are 
satisfied that the offered position is qualifjmg. 
Outstanding Researcher 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
1 I 
(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 worlung on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching and/or research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from former or current employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on January 14, 2005 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of ophthalmology.  heref fore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least 
three years of research experience in the field of ophthalmology as of that date, and 'that the 
beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field of ophthalmology as 
outstanding. The beneficiary joined the petitioning eye center in November 2001 as a research fellow. 
Thus, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary had more than three years research experience in 
ophthalmology. . 
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 "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling 
purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet 
these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. More 
specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic community 
through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 
5, 1991). 
Several of counsel's assertions imply that CIS may not evaluate the significance of the evidence 
provided the evidence relates to at least two criteria. This position is untenable, as it would result in the 
dubious finding in favor of eligibility for every researcher who volunteers to review manuscripts 
authored by others in any capacity and who has published an article or two regardless of the 
community's response to those articles. See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C), (E). While that example 
may be extreme, it illustrates the importance of evaluating the evidence submitted to meet a given 
criterion as to whether it is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. The regulation at 
- Page 6 
issue "provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 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. 
Counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that the petitioner did not claim that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. We concur with the director and find that the petitioner has not submitted any 
evidence relating to this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence establishing that the beneficiary is a member of the Association for 
Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), which has a membership of 11,370. The petitioner 
submitted ARVO's bylaws. Rule 2.01 provide's that members "shall be individuals with particular 
competence or interest in the field of ophthalmic investigation and vision research." (Emphasis added.) 
Rule 2.03 provides the following specific requirements for regular members: 
Regular membership shall be restricted to individuals demonstrating a serious interest in 
or malung significant contributions to visual science. This may be evidenced by: (a) 
scientific publications; (b) attendance at ophthalmological or visual science meetings; 
(c) direct involvement in research, or (d) other similar activity satisfactory to the Board 
of Trustees. 
The director concluded that these requirements were insufficient and that the beneficiary had not 
"otherwise distinguished himself significantly fiom other members." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that ARVO requires more than the mere payment of dues and that the 
beneficiary's membership in ARVO is not "commensurate with" his vocation. Finally, counsel notes 
that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(B) does not requires that the beneficiary distinguish 
himself fiom other members. 
While we concur with counsel that the petitioner need not provide evidence that sets the beneficiary 
apart fiom other members, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(B) does mandate that the 
organization require outstanding achievements of its members. Not every requirement beyond the 
payment of dues is an outstanding achievement. We concur with the director that ARVO does not 
require outstanding achievements of its members. As stated above, members need only be competent 
or interested in visual research. To demonstrate such competence or interest, members need only 
'demonstrate that they have published research, attended a meeting in the field or directly participated in 
research, none of which are outstanding achievements for an ophthalmology researcher. 
- 
Page 7 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
s ~ 
 The petitioner has never asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion. Although this criterion 
clearly relates to published materials "written by others," the director appears to have considered the 
beneficiary's own publication record under this criterion, concluding that the beneficiary had not been 
cited to a sufficient degree to warrant a favorable finding. 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 regardless of the number of such cites. Rather, frequent and 
wide citation can serve as objective evidence to meet other criteria, as will be discussed below. 
.- . 
We acknowledge that the petitioner submitted several press releases it issued that were reproduced on 
- two medical websites in addition to the petitioner's own website. We are not persuaded that the 
petitioner's own press releases constitute the type of independent journalistic or scientific coverage 
contemplated by the regulation. Thus, 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. 
Subsequent to the date of filing,-1 
was invited to review articles for FEBS Letters. Also after the date of filing, the beneficiary was invited 
to review articles for Genomics and Current Eye Research. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence 
that the beneficiary completed the requested reviews. 
The director concluded that peer review was a professional obligation in the beneficiary's field and that 
the beneficiary had not demonstrated that he had held editorial positions that would set him apart fiom 
others in the field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's standard is "almost impossible to 
meet" and that the beneficiary has satisfied the basic requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) as he has judged the work of others by reviewing manuscripts. 
First, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibiliiy 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 (Reg. Cornrn. 1971). Thus: any reviews 
conducted after the date of filing cannot be considered. As stated above, the record establishes only 
that the beneficiary completed a single review for Molecular Vision as of the date of filing. 
The evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with international 
recognition if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. 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. We note that the June 9, 
2004 request from the editors of Molecular Vision states that they will forward the manuscript to the 
beneficiary for his review "if' he feels his is bualified to perform the review. The Internet materials 
submitted by the petitioner regarding Molecular Vision provide that manuscripts are assigned to an 
editor who then requests critiques fi-om "at least two appropriate reviewers." (Emphasis added.) 
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 fi-om a substantial 
number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. We do not feel that this standard is "almost impossible." 
According to the Internet materials submitted, Molecular Vision alone has an editorial review board of 
59 scientists, suggesting that editorial positions exist in the beneficiary's field. While such positions 
may not be commonplace in the field, "[olutstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in 
the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition." 
(Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703,30705 (July 5, 199 1). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
Initially, counsel listed the beneficiary's published articles as the sole evidence to meet this criterion. In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel notes the press releases mentioned 
above. The record also contains a patent application, reference letters and the beneficiary's citation 
history. 
The director noted that the reference letters were primarily from the beneficiary's immediate circle of 
colleagues and concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary's reputation 
extended past his colleagues. On appeal, counsel asserts that reference letters are only issued upon 
request and, thus, the fact the beneficiary requested reference letters on his behalf should not be 
considered adversely. Counsel further notes that the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary's work was published and cited. Counsel concluded that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(E) requires "only evidence of the alien's original scientific research contributions. 
[The] Beneficiary has already made two major discoveries in his field. That should have been enough 
to qualify [the] Beneficiary as an outstanding researcher." 
' While appearing on the website of a professional association in a different area of science, it is significant that 
the American Physical Society considers "scientists" to have "an obligation" to participate in the peer-review 
process. See www.aps.org/statements/02~2.cfm. 
Page 9 . 
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 
usehl meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
The fact that the beneficiary has published his results cannot serve, in and of itself, to meet this 
criterion. We note that publication of scholarly articles is a separate criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(F). The implication that meeting that criterion is presumptive evidence to meet this 
criterion is to render meaningless the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least two of the 
regulatory criteria. At issue is whether the results reported in those articles can be considered 
contributions indicative of or consistent with international recognition. In a similar vein, the evidence 
that the beneficiary is an inventor on a patent application does not show that the beneficiary's invention 
is more significant than those of others in his field. To establish the significance of the beneficiary's 
work, we turn to experts in his field, whose letters we discuss below. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
success~l claim of international recognition. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 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 
795-796. 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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 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 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 individual with 
international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that recognition. 
Page 10 
The beneficiary obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Delhi, India in 2001. His research at that 
university focused on deciphering the mechanism of action of the anthrax toxin, identifying a molecule 
that can be used to protect mice 
 oisoned b 
 anthrax toxin. 
 After ,completing his degree, the 
beneficiary joined the laboratory om at the petitioner's eye center focusing on the , 
mode of action of eye disease proteins. 
 \ 
'\ 
oncedes that the beneficiary's work on anthrax in India is not "directly related" to his 
current work, but asserts that there is "an indirect relationship in terms of the methodology and training 
he received in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology." 
 As quoted above, section 
203(b)(l)(B)(i) provides that the alien must be recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area. Similarly, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an 
outfstanding professor or researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or 
researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academiced speclJied in the petition." 
The petitioner indicated on the petition that the beneficiary would focus on hereditary retinal diseases 
that fall under the group nam he remainder of the record reveals that the beneficiary now 
works in ophthalmology. itioner must establish that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally in the academic field of ophthalmology. 
asserts that while working in his laboratory, the beneficiary has "determined that two eye 
disease proteins, NLR (neural retina leucine zipper) and PNR (photoreceptor-specific nuclear receptor) 
for the development and maintenance of photoreceptor cells in 
the retina." 
 asserts that this work has been reported in one published article, three 
submitted p 
 The petitioner submitted five additional reference 
letters fiom six researchers, all of whom appear to be collaborators since they all conclude with this 
paragraph: 
Finally, I would like to provide a brikf summary of my experience collaborating with 
[the beneficiary]. We worked together on characterizing different reagents that will be 
usefbl in the understanding of the pathogenesis of RP and development of appropriate 
therapeutic agents. I found [the beneficiary] to be 
 intelligent and original scientist 
and I truly respect his passion for his work as well as his research skills. 
 [The 
beneficiary's] particular research into the Identification of and mechanism of these 
disease-causing mutations will ultimately lead to better and more successfbl treatment 
of these debilitating diseases. 
More significantly, after explaining the author's background and connection to the beneficiary, all of 
the letters contain the same three-paragraph discussion of the beneficiary's work2 in almost verbatim 
2 
 The near-identical paragraphs all begin as follows: 
[The beneficiary] received his Ph.D. from the University of Delhi, India where he worked on 
deciphering the mechanism for action of anthrax toxin. While not directly related to his current 
research . . . 
language, with only minor changes of a word here and there. While the authors all signed the reference 
letters affirming the information in the letters, the use of three near-identical paragraphs to discuss the 
beneficiary's work and its importance and a fourth identical paragraph purporting to characterize their 
personal experience of collabbrating with the beneficiary suggests that the language is not their own. 
The above letters are all fiom the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues and, by themselves, 
cannot establish the beneficiary's recognition beyond that circle. As stated above, the press releases 
issued by the petitioner carry less weight than 
 coverage. Two of the 
beneficiary's ophthalmology articles were cited only b 
 d a third ophthalmology article 
was cited by beneficiary himself and four other 
 This citation history is 
not significant. While most of the beneficiary's anthrax articles have been cited only once, one of the 
beneficiary's anthrax articles has been cited 19 times, including two self-citations. The petitioner has 
not satisfactorily established that the beneficiary's anthrax research falls within his current academic 
field, ophthalmology. Regardless, moderate citation of a single article is not persuasive evidence that 
the beneficiary's contributions have been recognized internationally as outstanding. That said, we will 
revisit this evidence below. , 
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 fiom the scientific 
community. Any 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 is indicative of contributions recognized internationally 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 published articles and has presented 
his work at conferences. 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 andlor 
extensive experience m biochemistry and molecular biology led him, in November 
2001, to the laboratory of 
 as responsible bnnging 
microarray technology to the Kellogg facility . . . 
In addition to his publications, [the beneficiary] has made numerous presentations at national 
and international meetings and conferences. His presentations have always been excellent and 
are very important to the continued study of. . . 
Research Director at France's INSERM, combines the first and second paragraphs, but uses. 
Page 12 
research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his 
or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization 
considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun 
"a full-time academic andlor research career." This report reinforces our position that publication of 
scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of international recognition; we must consider the 
research community's reaction to those articles. 
As stated above, the beneficiary's ophthalmology research has not been cited more than four times by 
independent researchers. While one of the beneficiary's anthrax articles has been moderately cited, the 
petitioner has not established that this demonstrates recognition in the field of ophthalmology. Even if 
we broadened the beneficiary's academic field to biochemistry or microbiology and considered the 
anthrax article, the beneficiary would meet only a single criterion. An alien must meet two criteria in 
order to establish eligibility. 
While we acknowledge the relationship between scientific contributions and published articles, we will 
not presume that an alien meets the contributions criterion simply based on meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion. We reiterates that such a presumption would render the requirement that an alien 
meet two criteria meaningless. As discussed in more detail above, moderate citation of a single article 
only indirectly related to the beneficiary's academic field, without independent reference letters 
attesting to the impact of the beneficiary's results, cannot serve to meet the contributions 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 an international 
reputation as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The 
dismissed. ' 
these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal, will be 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.