dismissed EB-1B Case: Plastics Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
&@ I! B 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
~dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a plastics engineering company. It seeks to classifL 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 process 
developer. The director 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
() 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. 
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 andor 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 withln the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
andor 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 September 10, 2002 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three years of 
research experience in the field of engineering as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been 
recognized internationally withln the field of engineering as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. FJ 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. 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 
The petitioner presented the beneficiary with two management awards in 2000 and 2001. The beneficiary also 
received the following scholarships: the Queen's Graduate Awards, given on a competitive basis to Queen's 
students; the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, a "provincial prize," and the National Sciences and Engineering 
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) PGS B Award, a national scholarship "awarded to top students in the 
areas of science and engineering." 
The director concluded that the scholarships were based on academic achievements and that recognition from 
one's employer was not evidence of international recognition as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the NSERC award was based on the beneficiary's research in the field. Counsel 
does not assert that the other scholarships and recognition are qualifying and we concur with the director that 
they are not. 
The record does not support counsel's assertion regarding the criteria for the NSERC scholarship. Rather, the 
letter from NSERC submitted initially asserts that the beneficiary was selected based on his scholastic 
achievements and research potential. 
Regardless, competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced experts in the field are not 
seeking scholarships. As such, this office consistently finds that scholarships cannot be considered "major 
prizes or awards." Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion and submitted no evidence relating 
to it. Thus, the director concluded that the record contained no evidence relating to this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the beneficiary's membership in the Society of Plastics Engineers should be cons~dered 
under this criterion. Counsel acknowledges that "admission into the Society of Plastics Engineers is largely 
based upon payment of an annual fee," but continues: "generally, those with distinguished reputations and 
notable accomplishments in the field serve as key members who help the organization to meet its goal of leading 
the plastics industry with novel research findings, such as [the beneficiary]." The petitioner submitted evidence 
of the beneficiary's membership in the society, but not the requirements for joining. 
Membership in an association that includes members with outstanding achievements is insufficient. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) requires memberships in associations that "require" 
outstanding achievements of their members. Thus, all members of a qualifLing association would have been 
selected based on their outstanding achievements. The record does not reflect that the society of which the 
beneficiary is a member requires outstanding achievements of its general membership. Thus, the beneficiary's 
membership in the society cannot serve to meet 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 
necessaly translation 
The petitioner submitted announcements of recognition received by the beneficiary published in school 
publications. The director concluded that these announcements could not serve to meet this criterion. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner is not submitting any additional materials relating to this criterion. We 
concur with the director that the school publications cannot serve to meet this criterion as their circulation 
appears limited to the beneficiary's school and, thus, they are not indicative of international recognition. 
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 academicfield 
Counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that no evidence was submitted to meet this criterion and 
we concur with the director. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. 
At the outset of her decision, the director noted that the witness letters were from the beneficiary's immediate 
circle of colleagues. In discussing this criterion, the director concluded that the record lacked evidence of the 
patents referenced in the witness letters or evidence that the beneficiary is considered to have advanced the field 
to a significant degree. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that the beneficiary is now the author of an 
approved patent and a pending patent and two letters fiom an independent member of the beneficiary's field. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "orignal" 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 contnbutions have won comparable recognition. To argue that all ori~nal research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unorigmal." 
rage 3 
1 
. 
In a similar vein, the evidence that the beneficiary holds a patent for his inventions with other patents pending 
establishes that he is a prolific inventor, but the very existence of the patents does not show that the 
beneficiary's inventions are more significant than those of others in his field. This office has previously stated, 
with regard to a lesser classification, that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with 
some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N 
Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by- 
case basis. Id. To establish the significance of the beneficiary's work, we turn to experts in his field, whose 
letters we discuss below. 
The beneficiary attended the University of Waterloo for his undergraduate degree and obtained his Master's 
degree and Ph.D. at Queen's University. Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from one of the beneficiary's 
professors at the University of Waterloo and several professors at Queen's University. 
irector of the Institute for Polymer Research at the 
the beneficiary was one of the university's best under aduate students and that as continued to 
follow the beneficiary's accomplishment&rther asserts that the beneficiary's publications on 
twin-screw extrusion analysis and grafting are of high quality and are based on innovative research. Dr. Penlidis 
attests to the positive reactions to the beneficiary's conference presentations and concludes that the beneficiary's 
work is "ori~nal, scholarly and significant." 
member of the beneficiary's graduate thesis defense committee at Queen's University, 
research there "led to important breakthroughs in reactive polymer processing 
technology." Specifically, the beneficiary's "exploration of the use of styrene as a comonomer for maleic 
anhydride grafting to polyethylene was comprehensive, providing insight into the mechanism and utility of this 
approach." In addition, the beneficiary performed "detailed model compound research on 
grafting which has provided insight into the factors that influence commercial grafting processes. 
providing a basis for overcoming challenges to solving a longstanding problem in the industry. 
characterizes the beneficiary's "discovery of the effects of unsaturation on grafting selectivity" as important, 
professor emeritus at Queen's University, asserts that while grafting of maleic anhydride to 
the subject of many studies, "the influence and mode of action of a second monomer have 
not been widely studied." The beneficiary's work has "considerably increased our understanding of this 
process.' ncludes that the beneficiary's "use of the twin-screw extruder enables commercial 
anhydride and styrene to polyethylene to be assessed." 
Two other professors at Queen's Universi provide similar 
information to that discussed above. dds that the beneficiary's "research was of significant value to 
the US military in safely preparing ive propellants," but the record lacks letters from high-level 
officials with any of the armed service divisions confirming the impact of the beneficiary's work in the military. 
the Human Resources Manager for the petitioner, describks the beneficiary's work for the 
petlt~oner. pon joining the petitioner, the beneficiary "applied his knowledge of reactive polymer processing U 
and Materials ChemisirylPolymer Science in general to the development and commercialization of several 
products." Specifically, the beneficiary worked on the development and commercialization of "the first 
environmentally compliant (ECO) wear resistant polyester formulation used in the fabrication of data cartridge 
housings for the computer industry." This work "led to various commercial polycarbonate resin formulations 
that are used in a variety of applications, including business equipment, telecommunications, r 
electronics and housewares.'' The beneficiary also worked on the development of the petitioner3- 
platform and collaborated with an Indian affiliate to discover novel methods to enhance 
electrical conductivity and to design a five-si a product for HP Shanghai that resulted in $550 K of new 
business opportunities for the petitioner. sserts that the beneficiary's work "led to the filing of 
two U.S., A-1 status, patent invention disclosures." According t-~-l status is the highest priority 
awarded by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not submit letters from the beneficiary's supervisor, 
management at the petitioning company or any engineers with the petitioning company confirming these 
assertions. As noted by the director, the petitioner also failed to submit the patent applications. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an approved patent and a patent application. The approved patent was filed 
February 11, 2003, after the petition was filed, and approved January 29, 2004. The pending patent was filed 
April 28,2003, also after the petition's filing date. The petitioner also submits two new witness letters. 
ndicates that his letter is based on a review of the beneficiary's credentials and publications 
but does not assert that he had ever heard of the beneficiary or his work prior to being approached for a 
reference letter. aises the beneficiary's work as novel and significant, but concludes only that 
"the imvlications of his work may have a vrofound effect on the electronic vackaaing and medical industnes, as - - 
well as on a host of other industries." Similarly, 
f 
oncludes that the beneficiary's patented 
'is both orignal and has the potential of trans orming the electronics packaging industry." Dr. 
nal conclusion that the beneficiary has contributed outstanding innovations that have impacted the 
r promise for applications is qualified with the phrase, age." We will not 
narrow the beneficiary's field to those witlun his age group or career sta oes not assert that he 
personally has been influenced by the beneficiary's work. 
ing Engineer for Exponent, asserts that he met the beneficiary at a conference. 
sserts that his research laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 
utilized the beneficiary's technique for using small mi~ro~spheres to monitor and indicate the shear stresses in a 
viscous polymer flow field. While this letter, in addition to the limited citations submitted on appeal, 
demonstrates that the beneficiary's work is now gaining some recognition beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues, the remaining evidence is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's international recognition at the 
time of filing to which the other references attest. 
While the beneficiary's research clearly has value and practical applications, it can be argued that any Ph.D. 
thesis, published article, or patented innovation, in order to be accepted, published or granted, must offer new 
and useful information to the pool of knowledge. The record, however, does not establish that the 
beneficiary's work, while promising, is already recognized internationally as a groundbrealung advance in 
polymer science, let alone that it was so recognized at the time of filing. Thus, we cannot conclude that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
* Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary had authored four published articles and had 
presented his work as a poster and orally at three conferences. While counsel discusses the beneficiary's 
conference presentations as a separate criterion, the regulations do not provide for such consideration. Rather, 
we find conference presentations to be comparable evidence relating to the scholarly articles criterion set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. fj 204,5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
The director concluded that citations are an important gauge of the influence of a researcher's published work. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a list of eight articles that cite the beneficiary's work, copies of seven of the 
articles and a reference letter attesting to the significance of the citations. Of the eight citations, only two could 
have been published prior to the date of filing, September 10, 2002. Of the seven articles submitted, three cite 
one of the beneficiary's articles and four cite a second article by the beneficiary. Thus, as of the date of appeal, 
none of the beneficiary's articles had been cited more than four times. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. 
Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 
expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." 
Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers 
who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or 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. 
The petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's eligbility 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 (Comm. 1971). As of that date, the beneficiary had 
been cited, at most, twice. Even on appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of no more than four citations for 
any one of the beneficiary's articles. This citation record is not indicative of international recognition in the 
field. As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the respect of 
his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international exposure for his work. 
The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to 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 these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
fj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.