dismissed EB-1B Case: Optical Networking

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLICCOPV 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
MAR 2 0 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1 )(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 
$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a high speed optical networking firm. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(B), as an outstanding researcher. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as a research scientist. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established that it employs the requisite three full-time researchers in addition to the 
beneficiary, as required by section 203(b )(1 )(B)(iii)(III) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established that it employs the requisite three full-time 
researchers in addition to the beneficiary, and submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record also fails to establish that the beneficiary enjoys 
international recognition. Specifically, when we simply "count" the evidence submitted, the petitioner 
has submitted qualifying evidence under two of the regulatory criteria as required, judging the work of 
others and scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the final 
merits determination, however, much of the evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria 
reflects routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not, as of the date of filing, set the 
beneficiary apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 1 Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). An application 
or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO 
even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 
683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO 
conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
I The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
-Page 3 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if --
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States --
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(II) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
II. QUALIFYING EMPLOYER 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be in 
the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien 
a tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien 
a permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, 
division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-
Page 4 
time in research posltlOns, and that it has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
(Emphasis added.) 
The director concluded that the record lacks evidence that the petitioner employs at least three full-time 
The . contends that it has met this requirement through its employment 
and However, the director found that the duties 
are predominantly management duties and not research duties. On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the director was in error, and submits additional evidence. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's employment of three full-time researchers can be inferred from the 
petitioner's documented outstanding accomplishments in an academic field, and the fact that the 
petitioner was spending $1.3 million for research and development (R & D) at the time this petition 
was filed. Counsel submits a copy of the petitioner's budget summary. Counsel also asserts that the 
petitioner's employment of three full-time researchers can be inferred from the fact that the petitioner 
rents research facilities from Cornell University and the University of California, Santa Barbara. The 
petitioner has submitted several rental invoices from these facilities, two of which list _ We 
reiterate that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) states that the petitioner must "demonstrate" 
that it employs at least three full-time researchers. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to establish this 
element of eligibility; US CIS is not required to infer the number of researchers, either based upon the 
petitioner's accomplishments, the amount of its annual R&D budget or its rental of research facilities. 
Counsel attaches job descriptions for the job title "materials scientists" from O*New OnLine and the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, and ajob description of "Director, Research and Development" from 
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. At issue, however, are not the job titles of_ and _ 
but thei~ duties. The petitioner submitted, in response to a request for evidence, resumes for 
and. which contain their job duties . 
••••• resume lists his job duties as 
Technology as follows: leading MEMS product development efforts; being a key technical contributor 
during technology incubation and evaluation; leading a group of MEMS engineers to turn novel 
technology into MEMS products; manage development projects to specification and report weekly to 
the Executive Management Team; and, as a member of the IP (intellectual property) Management team, 
establish a robust MEMS patent portfolio. _ job duties do not suggest that the S. Director 
engages in full-time research activities, but, rather, engages in management duties which include some 
research activities. 
resume lists his job duties as as follows: project 
management/monitoring, budget management, WI customer, design work, proposal 
~ technical report writing and supervising other team members. The remaining job duties in 
_ resume are stated in the past tense and appear to pertain to his previous position as 
Page 5 
While his job duties do include some optical "'''''''F.'' 
research job duties do not suggest that the 
engages in full-time research activities, but, rather, engages in management duties. 
On appeal, counsel asserts the management duties of _ and _ do not preclude them from 
engaging in research activities. However, the question is not whether they engage in research activities 
in addition to management duties, but whether they are full-time researchers, and their job duties 
suggest that they are not. 
In light of the above, the AAO agrees with the director that the petitioner has not established that it 
employs the necessary number of full-time researchers such that it is a qualifying petitioner pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[ e ]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists the 
following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's 
work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
Page 6 
petitIOn, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence 
submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final 
merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations.2 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination.3 While involving a different classification than the one at 
issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's reasoning persuasive to 
the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the 
test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new 
analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two­
step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) and 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under three criteria 
whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under only two 
criteria. 
-Page 7 
A. Analysis 
1. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 26, 2010, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a researcher who is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in his academic field. The petioioner has submitted documentation 
pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i).4 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the following conference organizers invited the beneficiary to 
review papers: the ICC CISS 2009, Shadow-CoN EXT 2008, NTMS 2008, ICCN Network Security 
Track 2008, GC CCNS 2008, WiMob 2008, ICC WCS 2008, IEEE Globecom Ad-hoc and Sensor 
Networking Symposium 2007, Q2SWinet 2007, ICC Computer and Communications Network Security 
Symposium 2007, ICC WAS 2007, INFOCOM 2007, INFOCOM Minisymposium 2007, Globecom 
WASNet 2006, MASS 2006, ICC 2005 and HPSR 2005. The record establishes that the beneficiary 
completed most of the requested reviews. While approximately one-third of the requests for review are 
from the beneficiary's many of the invitations are from 
organizers who are independent of the beneficiary. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary served as a technique committee member for the following conferences: lEE NAS 2009, 
ACM CoNEXI 2009, CSA 2008, WiMob 2008, Second IFIP International Conference on NTMS 2008, 
IEEE GlobeCom 2008, ICCCN 2008, IEEE ICC 2007. This evidence qualifies under the plain 
language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Pursuant to the reasoning in 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the nature of these duties may be and will be considered below 
in our final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the 
beneficiary's contributions themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That said, the plain 
language of the regulation does not simply require original research, but original "research 
contributions." Had the regulation contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would 
have said so, and not have included the extra word "contributions." See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd 
Cir. Sep 15,2003). Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires that the contributions be "to 
the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory or institution. 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in 
this decision. 
-Page 8 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted six reference letters (four from the beneficiary's immediate 
circle of coauthors, collaborators and professors). 
that he was the beneficiary's Doctoral thesis supervisory committee member at 
the University of Nebraska Lincoln, where he states the beneficiary worked on key management issues 
in hybrid wireless sensory networks (HWSN's). He states that the beneficiary's research 
two Elliptic-Curve based schemes for secure group communication in ad hoc networks, which 
tes are more efficient than traditional communication schemes and hold important applications. 
does not explain how this work has impacted the field. He states that the beneficiary's 
research proposed centralized group rekeying (CGK) schemes in sensor networks, which he states are 
more efficient and secure than traditional schemes, and that the beneficiary proposed a communication 
protocol for WSN's to address scalability and energy-efficiency limitations found in previous protocols. 
He states that the beneficiary proposed a key management protocol, mKeying, to support key 
distribution and revocation in WSN's with multiple base stations. _ does not provide examples 
of independent research institutions using the beneficiary's proposed techniques, or assert that the 
beneficiary's proposed techniques are becoming one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as 
would be expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. _ states that the beneficiary has 
authored scholarly research papers and articles. The regulations, however, include a separate criterion 
for scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any 
logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement 
from scholarly articles. 
states that he worked with the beneficiary at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. He 
states that he and the beneficiary developed a novel key management scheme for WSN's and co­
authored two papers. He states that they proposed a novel key revocation scheme for WSN's, KeyRev, 
which is far better than the existing centralized key revocation scheme. discusses the potential 
applications for the beneficiary's research but does not provide any examples of how the beneficiary's 
innovations are already being applied in the field. He states that the beneficiary's other research 
contributions have involved network security issues such as cryptography, secure routing protocols and 
intrusion detection protocols, but he does not explain how the beneficiary'S work is already a 
contribution to the field as a whole. 
states that he met the beneficiary in November 2007, when the beneficiary began 
working with him at the petitioning company. He states that the beneficiary'S Doctoral work proposed 
a novel protocol, Control Packet Queuing (CPO), based on a popular protocol for an optical burst 
switching (OBS) network. He states that the beneficiary's proposed protocol will improve reliability 
and performance of the optical network and reduce costs, but he does not provide any examples of how 
the beneficiary's innovations are already being applied in the field. 
states that she met the beneficiary in 2007 at the University of Nebraska Lincoln 
when they worked together in a Database course. She states that the beneficiary has presented a novel 
-Page 9 
key distribution scheme for WSN's, mKeying, which she states is very promising, and has potential 
applications in the area of battlefields and homeland security, but she does not state that the 
beneficiary's innovations are already being applied in the field. 
states that he became aware of the beneficiary's work in 2006 from the 
beneficiary's article, a Survey of Security Issues in Wireless Sensory Networks. _ states the 
beneficiary's research identified the security issues in WSN's, providing "a solid foundation for 
engineers to develop better solutions", but he does not state how the beneficiary's work has already 
contributed to the field as a whole. 
states that he became aware of the beneficiary's work at an IEEE International 
.£.!:!!!i..erence (2007), from his conference publication regarding efficient key revocation in WSN's. 
_ decribes KeyRev, the beneficiary's proposed scheme to remove compromised sensor nodes from 
WSN's, as "important and groundbreaking", with broad usage in security applications for other types of 
networks, but he does not assert that the beneficiary'S proposed techniques are becoming one of the 
"widely accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. United 
States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, 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, as the AAO has done 
above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also 
Matter ofSofftci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and vague 
claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples 
of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
Page 10 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden ofproof.5 Considering the letters and other evidence 
in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's research, while original, can be 
considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner has submitted a listing of several books and abstracts of several book chapters co­
authored by the beneficiary. The petitioner has submitted several journal articles, conference and 
workshop papers, and technical reports co-authored by the beneficiary. Thus, the petitioner has 
submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary has been cited in excess of 50 times by 
researchers and scientists around the world. The beneficiary's citation record, by itself, is not indicative 
of contributions to the academic field as a whole. However, the beneficiary's citation history is a 
relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond 
his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1122. The petitioner also submitted a copy 
of a request to re-publish a journal article co-authored by the beneficiary, and requests from three 
graduate students outside of the United States concerning the beneficiary's work. All of this evidence 
will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets two of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically the 
petitioner submitted evidence to meet the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). The 
next step, however, is a final merits determination that considers whether the evidence is consistent 
with the statutory standard in this matter, international recognition as outstanding. Section 
203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
ii. Final Merits Determination 
It is important to note at the outset that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 
international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some 
extent indicative of international recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers 
should stand apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international 
5 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, US CIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 11 
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)). 
The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence 
is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The AAO cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many 
scientists to review submitted articles. The same is true for scientific conferences, which rely on many 
scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer 
enjoys international recognition. The record establishes the beneficiary's moderate record of peer 
review (approximately 50 conference papers) and service as a technique committee member for several 
international conferences. However, without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his 
field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of 
referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary'S judging experience 
is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
Regarding the beneficiary'S original research, as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level of a 
contribution to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary'S work was "original" 
in that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the beneficiary apart in the 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. 56 Fed. 
Reg. at 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a Master's 
degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. To argue that all original research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that 
most research is "unoriginal." 
The petitioner has provided a listing of several books and abstracts of several book chapters co­
authored by the beneficiary, as well as copies of several journal articles, conference and workshop 
papers, and technical reports co-authored by the beneficiary. While the beneficiary has authored books, 
book and articles, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm (accessed June 23, 2011 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding). The OOH 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. [d. This information reveals that original 
published research, whether arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the 
researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's field. 
As stated above, the beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence 
is indicative of the beneficiary'S recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner submitted citation results from Google Scholar indicating that the 
-Page 12 
beneficiary's work has been moderately cited (54 times). The petitioner also submitted a copy of a 
request to re-publish a journal article co-authored by the beneficiary, and requests from three graduate 
students outside of the United States concerning an incomplete citation in the beneficiary'S work. This 
moderate level of citation, request to reprint a journal article, and letters from graduate students are not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's published work has been widely cited or other 
comparable evidence that demonstrates that the beneficiary's publication record is consistent with 
international recognition. 
In light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying evidence, 
participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing books and articles that have not 
garnered widespread citations or other response in the academic field, does not set the beneficiary apart 
in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the 
purpose of the regulatory criteria. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary 
is a talented research scientist, who has won the respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, 
while securing some degree of exposure for his work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the 
beneficiary to the level of an alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher or 
professor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an 
outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In addition, the petitioner has not established that it employs the requisite three full-time researchers in 
addition to the beneficiary, as required by section 203(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(C)(iii). 
The petition will be denied for the above-stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.