dismissed EB-1B Case: Petroleum Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
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. $ 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 fixther inquiry must be made to that office. 
vl 
?kobert P. W~emann, 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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding professor pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(B). The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as an assistant professor. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the 
outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel resubmits all of the previously submitted evidence, which is already part of the 
record. Counsel also submits a brief and new evidence, much of which relates to events after the date 
of filing. 
At the outset, we note that the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (1 2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 
1971). Thus, evidence of articles published after the date of filing or invitations to review manuscripts 
that postdate the filing of the petition cannot be considered. See also Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175-76 (Cornrnr. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 1 14 (BIA 198 1) for the 
proposition that we cannot consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition). 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
Page 3 
(I) 
 for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(111) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 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 andlor 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andlor 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 October 13, 2006, to classifjl the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of petroleum engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at 
least three years of teaching or 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 beneficiary obtained his 
Ph.D. in 2005, less than three years before the petition was filed. The petitioner did not submit any 
evidence that the beneficiary had full responsibility for teaching any class while a Ph.D. student. Thus, 
the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's Ph.D. research has been recognized within the 
academic field as outstanding if that research is to count toward the beneficiary's three years of 
teaching or research experience. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 satisfjl 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 
Page 4 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. Employment-Based immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 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. 
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 qualifl. Significantly, even lesser international awards cannot 
serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. CJ: 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recogruzed awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Initially, counsel asserted that the beneficiary's student fellowship and student paper award serve to 
meet this criterion. The beneficiary received a student fellowship from the University of Texas at 
Austin, effective upon his admission to and enrollment at the university. In October 2001, the Society 
of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) issued the beneficiary a certificate recognizing the beneficiary's 
participation in the doctoral division of the International Student PresentationtPaper Contest. In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted an electronically 
signed letter fkom, SPE's Young Member Programs Manager, advising that SPE has 
over 157 student chapters all over the world and that the beneficiary's research presentation was one of 
12 student presentations to advance from the district to the regional competition and finally to the 
international competition. 
The director concluded that the record did not establish that his student fellowship and recognition from 
SPE were major prizes or awards. On appeal, counsel states on page 2 of hs brief that the petitioner 
submitted evidence of "honors and awards" received by the beneficiary. On page 5, counsel reiterates 
the statements made by On pages 13 through 15, however, where counsel discusses the 
criteria the beneficiary is alleged to meet, counsel no longer asserts that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
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. 
We concur with the director that scholarships and fellowships designed to support the recipient's 
education and paper awards limited to students, thereby excluding the most experienced and renowned 
members of the field, are not major prizes or awards. Moreover, awards limited to newly published 
work must necessarily focus on the potential of the work rather than any demonstrated impact in the 
field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academicjeld which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of SPE, the American Institute of 
Chemical Engineers (AIChE and the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES). Initially, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from ), Manager of Sales and Customer Service for AIChE, advising that 
members must be "engaged in an activity and possess scientific knowledge or practical experience 
which qualifj.7 the candidate to cooperate with engineers in the advancement of chemical engineering 
knowledge." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted the bylaws for 
AIChE and a membership application containing a chart listing membership requirements. The 
requirements reflect that members must meet specific education and experience requirements. Notably, 
an engineer with a baccalaureate in chemical engineering fi-om a school of recognized standing and no 
experience is eligible for membership. The petitioner also submitted a Member Resource Guide for 
SPE indicating that members must be employed in work related to the petroleum industry and meet 
certain educational and/or experience requirements. Finally, the petitioner submitted information about 
the Society of Biological Engineering (SBE), a technical community of AIChE. The materials reflect 
that any member of AIChE with an interest in biological engineering may pay the necessary dues to join 
SBE. It is not clear that SBE is the same as BMES. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is a member of SBE. Regardless, SBE clearly has the same membership requirements as 
AIChE. 
The record does not reflect that any of the organizations of which the beneficiary is a member require 
outstanding achievements of their general membership. Thus, the director determined that the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion and counsel does not challenge that conclusion on appeal. We 
concur with the director. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academicjield. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted two articles that cite the beneficiary's work and evidence that a journal printed 
an abridged version of one of the beneficiary's presentations. 
Page 6 
Research articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the 
beneficiary. Review articles typically report on a spectrum of recent reported advances in the field, and 
are not generally about one particular researcher's work. While such evidence may relate to the impact 
of the author's scholarly research articles and original contributions, citations in research articles or 
broad review articles are not particularly persuasive evidence to meet this criterion. Thus, the director 
concluded that citations of the beneficiary's work could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel no longer asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion, but does discuss the evidence initially 
submitted to meet this criterion. 
The first article citing the beneficiary's work, "Wettability Alteration for Water-Block Prevention in 
High-Temperature Gas Wells," evaluates five different chemicals for their ability to prevent water 
block formation at high temperature. The paper cites the beneficiary and another research team for the 
background principle that water removal occurs in two stages. The second article citing the 
beneficiary's work, "Modeling Low-Salinity Waterflooding," discusses the author's own model of low 
salinity flooding and its implications. The article discusses the beneficiary's results, reproducing a 
graph fi-om the beneficiary's article. While the author of this second article clearly applied the 
beneficiary's work, the citing article primarily reports the author's own model and, thus, cannot be said 
to be "about" the beneficiary's work. We will, however, consider the significance of this article below 
as it relates to the impact of the beneficiary's contributions and scholarly articles. 
Finally, the Journal of Petroleum Technology, an official publication of SPE, selected one of the 
beneficiary's presentations to be "highlighted" in their journal. The article is not "about" the 
beneficiary's work in that it does not analyze or comment upon the beneficiary's work. Rather, it 
appears to be an abridged version of the beneficiary's presentation. For example, the article never 
refers to the beneficiary or his research team by name or generically. Rather, the highlighted article is 
written in the style of a researcher reporting his own results. Readers are advised that for a limited time 
they can access the full article online. 
Thus, rather than constituting published work "about" the beneficiary, th~s article appears to be an 
abridged version of an article by the beneficiary. While counsel asserts on appeal that this evidence 
demonstrates that the beneficiary's work is considered "authoritative," the letter fiom -, 
Technology Editor for the journal, advises the beneficiary that the decision to highlight his work "does 
not imply peer review or approval of your paper, nor does it affect consideration of your paper by the 
Editorial Review Committee if you have submitted your paper for review." Thus, the inclusion of an 
abridged version of the beneficiary's work as a "highlighted" piece appears to involve even less 
scrutiny than the peer-review process that the journal normally uses to select articles for publication. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academic field. 
The record reflects that, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary had refereed articles for the SPE 
Journal. The director noted 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. The director concluded that absent 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, the beneficiary cannot meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel notes that SPE has members worldwide and asserts: "The fact that this international 
organization sought the opinion of [the beneficiary] as an outstanding expert indicates that his 
reputation crossed national boundaries. Counsel's assertion is not persuasive. The letter thanking the 
beneficiary for reviewing his first manuscript for the SPE Journal is from Review Chairperson Dr. 
, one of the beneficiary's own coauthors and collaborators. Being requested to review 
an article by one's own collaborator is not evidence of international recognition. Moreover, we agree 
with the director that the peer-review process for scientific journals requires the solicitation of 
numerous volunteers to review manuscripts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
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. The regulation at issue provides criteria 
to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Any Ph.D. thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. To conclude that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
Page 8 
On appeal, counsel notes the importance of the beneficiary's area of research. The classification sought 
is limited to those researchers with international recognition. We will not presume that every 
researcher engaged in an important area of research enjoys international recognition for that work. 
The petitioner relies on several reference letters. The opinions of experts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. 
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 
(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 eligbility; 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 Sofici, 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 widespread 
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. The most persuasive letters are fiom independent references who were previously aware of 
the petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with international recognition should be 
able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that recognition. 
The director concluded that the record lacked objective evidence supporting the reference letters. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the publication of the beneficiary's articles supports the claims of 
expertise and influence in the reference letters. While the beneficiary's articles are relevant to this 
criterion, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
Thus, there mere authorship of scholarly articles cannot serve as presumptive evidence to meet this 
criterion. To hold otherwise would render the regulatory requirement that a beneficiary meet at least 
two criteria meaningless. 
The beneficiary received his Ph.D. fiom the University of Texas at Austin in 2005. The beneficiary 
then worked for several months at PetroTel, Inc. in Texas. As of the date of filing, the beneficiary 
was working for the petitioning university. 
the beneficiary's Ph.D. dissertation supervisor, asserts broadly that the 
beneficiary "has made pivotal scientific contributions." More specifically, ~r.asserts that 
the beneficiary described the removal of water in porous media due to the flow of a fully saturated 
gas, a process- that was not even thought to occur.* Dr further asserts that the beneficiary's 
concept of "capillary wicking" in application to evaporative processes "is a unique contribution 
Page 9 
which underscores the depth of understanding [the beneficiary] has developed in the area of 
interfacial flows." The director expressed concern that Dr. Sharma stated that the beneficiary had 
authored ten articles while the record contains only five. On appeal, counsel notes that the 
beneficiary's curriculum vitae lists nine conference papers, seven articles (only five of which had 
been published) and three poster presentations. 
Irrespective of the number of published articles b the beneficiary, s letter does not 
establish the beneficiary's impact in the field. Dr. bstates that the beneficiary's publications 
"are already being used by the industrial operators and in other universities to advance the 
applications to improved recovery of gas." Similarly, m Dean of the Viterbi School of 
Engineering at the University of Southern California and one of the beneficiary's coauthors, asserts 
that the beneficiary's "publications are already being used by industry operators, as well as in other 
universities to improve recovery of gas from subsurface reservoirs." Neither Dr.nor Dr. 
identifies any specific team either in industry or academia using the beneficiary's work. The 
director concluded these claims were unsupported in the record. 
On appeal, counsel asserts, "it is unrealistic to think [the experts supporting the petition] would have 
independent knowledge of the applications of [the beneficiary's] research by oil and gas companies, 
other scientists and scholars. or bv anvone else." Counsel also notes that the beneficiarv's research is 
d d 
relatively new. Counsel is not persuasive. and are the beneficiary's 
coauthors. It is reasonable that, if their collaborative work is truly being applied by independent 
industry researchers, they would be able to identi 
 those using their own research. Moreover, 
counsel does not explain why and fy make the claim that the beneficiary's 
work is being applied at other universities and in industry if they have no independent knowledge of 
that fact. Regardless, the most persuasive evidence of the application of the beneficiary's research 
would be letters fi-om independent researchers, either in industry or academia, who can confirm their 
own use of the beneficiary's work. The record contains no such letters. The record also lacks 
evidence that the beneficiary's work is frequently cited. Finally, if the beneficiary's research is too 
new to have impacted the field as implied by counsel on appeal, it would appear that the petition may 
have been filed prematurely. 
It remains, 
 does not identify any independent research groups using the beneficiary's 
work and the record does not contain letters from these groups confirming their reliance on the 
beneficiary's models or theories. 
, Strategic Planning and Business Manager for Chevron, asserts that the beneficiary spent 
six weeks as a visiting scholar with Chevron in the summer of 2006. 
 asserts that the 
beneficiary developed a pioneering understanding of the effect of interfacial forces on the 
evaporative phase behavior and rates in porous media. while asserts that this work has 
"far reaching applications," he does not provide examples of where the beneficiary's models or 
theories are being used. further asserts that the beneficiary's research with the mechanism 
of capillarity "can be used to conveniently determine the effect of multiple parameters of gas 
production from wells in one 
 ain provides no examples of how this method has already 
impacted the field. Finally, 
 provides no examples to support his assertion that the 
beneficiary's work has "wide appeal including the areas of biological tissues engineering." The 
record lacks letters from biological engineers confirming their use of the beneficiary's models or 
theories. 
, a distinguished reservoir engineering advisor with PetroTel, asserts that he knew 
the beneficiary during his employment with PetroTel. ~r-characterizes the beneficiary as a 
"very well qualified young engineer" who is "capable of making significant future contributions to 
the technology of oil and gas production that will benefit this country." ~r. speculates that 
the beneficiary's method to understand interfacial forces on the evaporative phase behavior "has 
potential applications 
 g unmanageable formation damage phenomena such as halite 
precipitation." While 
 praises the beneficiary's work on the mechanism of capillarity, he 
provides no examples of its use in industry or independent university laboratories. 
, Chairman of the petitioner's College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 
Petroleum Engineering, claims that the beneficiary is-internationally recognized as a leading 
researcher but then states that the beneficiary is "an up and coming scientist with great potential." 
mprovides a similar discussion of the specifics of the beneficiary's work to those addressed 
above. does not provide examples of the beneficiary's work being applied in the field. 
Another professor with the petitioning university, 
 asserts that the beneficiary's 
"publications are already being used by the industrial operators and in other universities to advance 
the applications to improved recovery of gas." This assertion is not supported by evidence of wide 
citation of the beneficiary's publications or by letters from industrial operators confirming their use 
of the beneficiary's models and theories. 
dof~oclt 
The petitioner submits a new letter on appeal electronically si ed by 
Deformation Research, Ltd. at the University of Leeds. Dr. 
 asserts that he propose working 
with the beneficiary in May 2005 and praises the beneficiary's work with X-ray 
mathematical modeling and numerical methods to study evaporation from porous media. Dr. 
asserts that the beneficiary's research "is expected to help increase gas production." 
As discussed above, the record contains evidence that the beneficiary's work has been cited twice, 
once in a paper that applies the beneficiary's model. This single application of the beneficiary's 
work does not establish the type of broad international recognition as outstanding contemplated in 
the statute. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally as 
outstanding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic$eld. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary had authored five published articles as of the 
date of filing. The beneficiary had also presented his work at conferences. The director did not contest 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. While the beneficiary's articles have appeared in distinguished 
journals, we will not presume the influence of a given article from the journal in which it appeared. 
Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate the impact of the beneficiary's individual articles. The 
beneficiary's conference presentations have generated some interest, as is apparent from the selection to 
reprint an abridged version of one of the beneficiary's presentations in the Journal of Petroleum 
Technology and the SPE recognition of his presentation at the district and regonal level. Moreover, 
one of the beneficiary's published models has been utilized and cited in another publication, although 
the beneficiary's work has not been widely and frequently cited. Even if we agreed with the director 
that the beneficiary does meet this criterion, for the reasons discussed above, the record falls far short of 
establishing that the beneficiary meets any other 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. $ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.