dismissed EB-1B Case: Polymer Science And Engineering

i&&jdng data deleted to 
prevent clsa*jy c:':..::?nanted 
hvaion of persatid privaw 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MR 2oGl 
LIN 06 012 52045 
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 fiu-ther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
- 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employmentlbased immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. 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. fj 1153(b)(l)(B). 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 
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for 
classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and a copy of documents already a part of the record of proceeding. 
 , 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. In general, while the record is 
supported by letters from esteemed mkmbers of the beneficiary's field, their general accolades are not 
supported by more objective evidence of international recognition. While their opinions have been 
given due consideration and we do not doubt the authors' sincerity or expertise, the remaining evidence 
is simply not consistent with the beneficiary's claimed international recognition as outstanding, the 
statutory standard for the classification sought. 
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, 
- 
Page 3 
(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 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3) states that'a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an , 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andfor 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 3, 2005 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of polymer science and engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary had at least three years of research experience in this field as of that date, and that the 
 . 
beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 outstapding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the beneficiary must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the 
controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence 
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 
More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). The petitioner claims the beneficiary has 
satisfied the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academicjeld which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
' The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any cnteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
- 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the Society for Plastics Engineers 
(PSE) and the American Chemical Society (ACS). The materials from these organizations, submitted 
by the petitioner, reflect that PSE requires a combination of education and experience amounting to six 
"credits." The list of credits reveals that a Ph.D. alone equals six credits. Thus, PSE requires no more 
than a Ph.D. for membership. ACS membership is also open to those with an acceptable combination 
of education and experience, including as little as a bachelor's degree in a chemical science certified to 
ACS. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that these organizations do not require 
outstanding achievements of their general membership. We concur with the director's analysis and 
conclusion. 
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 a letter from Dr. a member of the beneficiary's thesis committee 
at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, asserting that the beneficiary has refereed articles for the 
Polymer Composites Journal and the Polymer Engineering & Science Journal. Dr. -is an editor 
for both journals. Dr. asserts that both journals are internationally circulated, enjoy a "strong 
reputation" and are "strictly refereed by the scientific community." Dr.further asserts that the 
beneficiary "has made valuable and significant scientific contribution[s] to these fields through his 
internationally recognized research, which qualifies him as an unquestionable choice of referee." In a 
separate letter, Dr.ases his conclusion that the beneficiary has an international reputation on 
the fact that he has presented his work at international conferences. 
The director noted that peer review is routine in the field and that ~ris a close colleague and 
concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary was selected for these 
responsibilities based on his international recognition. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates the statements of Dr. 
 and notes that the court in Buletini v. IiVS, 
860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), held that 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iv), a regulation relating to a 
different classification than the one sought in this matter, does not require evidence that participating as 
a judge was the result of having extraordinary ability. Id. at 123 1. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the 
AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising 
within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
Page 5 
Regardless, we do not find it violates the reasoning in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 123 1, to examine the 
evidence submitted as to whether it is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. The 
court in Buletini was concerned that an alien would need to first demonstrate "extraordinary ability" 
in order to meet the criterion set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv). We are not 
following this "circular exercise" that troubled the court. Rather, we are looking at the type of review 
responsibilities inherent to the field and what review responsibilities might be indicative of or at least 
consistent with international recognition. 
While we do not question Dr. 
 sincerity, a simple declaration that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized is insufficient. The evidence supporting that declaration must be consistent 
with it. International recognition, by definition, requires recognition beyond one's own thesis 
committee members. Dr. does not suggest that an independent editorial committee reviews the 
credentials of every reviewer for these two journals. We concur with the director that being requested 
to review an article by one's own advisor is not indicative of international recognition. 
Moreover, 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. Dr. does not provide the number of referees for either journal. 
Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart fiom others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
received independent requests fiom a substantial number of journals fiom editors with whom he has no 
connection or, like Dr. served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
Jield. 
The director stated that the petitioner cannot demonstrate that the beneficiary meets 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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the plain language of the regulation requires only that the research 
contributions be original. As stated above, eligible aliens should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The criteria are to 
be used in evaluating whether a researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 
5, 1991). We cannot ignore that it is inherent to the field of research and development to pursue 
original research and innovations. Interpreting the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) as 
inquiring only whether the beneficiary's research is technically "original" would imply that most 
research is "unoriginal." Such an approach is meaningless as a tool for evaluating the extent of the 
beneficiary's recognition in the field. 
In a similar vein, the very existence of an invention disclosure does not show that the beneficiary's 
invention is more significant than those of others in his field. Significantly, in a case involving a lesser 
classification, this office stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence ofseven a 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. In this instance, while the beneficiary and his advisor, Dr. filed a Uniform 
Invention Disclosure Form with the University of Massachusetts, Arnherst, there is no confirmation 
from the relevant office that the university then proceeded to file a patent application for this invention 
or that any company has expressed any interest in licensing the innovation. 
The beneficiary received his undergraduate degree from Fudan University. He then attended Bowling 
Green State University in Ohio before receiving his Ph.D. from the University of ~assachusetts, 
Amherst. As of the date of filing, the beneficiary was working for the petitioner as a research scientist. 
The petitioner submitted several reference letters in support of this criterion. The opinions of experts 
in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successhl 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 beneficiary 
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 beneficiary and are merely responding 
to a solicitation to review the beneficiary'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 7 
Dr. 
 discusses the beneficiary's work at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There, the 
beneficiary focused on exploring an innovative method to produce high performance matrix-free fiber- 
reinforced polymeric c~mposites. Dr. - explains: 
[The beneficiary] developed a novel process called high-temperature high-pressure 
sintering and produced Spectra@ fiber-reinforced model ballistic shields, and other high 
strength high impact resistant matrix-free composites with double curvatures, which 
disproved a prominent researcher's claim that Spectra@ fiber cannot be directly molded 
and opened our eyes to new frontiers in this field. [The beneficiary] performed the first- 
ever complete characterization of this type of composites using various thermal, 
mechanical, structural and morphological methods: WAXD, SEM, DSC, TMA, tensile, 
flexure, impact, adhesion, etc. Moreover, he extended the studies to 2 other similar 
materials, conducted the first extensive comparative study and provided comprehensive 
technical understanding and insights related to this novel process and the resulting 
cutting-edge new materials. 
Dr. 
 notes that this work was supported by the U.S. Army Research, Development and 
Engineering Command and has applications to providing stronger and lightweight body armor and 
helmets. 
Dr. continues: 
In another research project, [the beneficiary] investigated the swelling stress of Kapton8 
and various polyacrylic thin films in diffusive media, measured the difhsivity of the 
liquid media using a novel experimental setup called environmental tensile testing, and 
examined the influence of swelling on the mechanical and adhesion properties of the 
polymer films 
Dr. 
 notes that this work was supported by Hewlett-Packard. While Dr. affirms that the 
beneficiary's record is remarkable "for a new ph.~.," at issue is whether the beneficiary's contributions 
have garnered international recognition. 
Dr. 
 asserts that the beneficiary's work with Dr. "is held in high regard in the scientific 
community and is respectfully cited." Dr. - further asserts that the beneficiary's international 
- 
 recognition is apparent fi-om his publications and presentations and that "many in the U.S. benefit from 
his significant original research." Dr. provides no examples of a single independent laboratory, 
academic, military or private, applying the beneficiary's methods. Nor does Dr. 
 provide the 
number of citations necessary to be "respectfully cited." Primary and secondary evidence of citations 
would be the citing articles themselves or a citation index listing the articles that cite the beneficiary's 
work. Only where primary and secondary evidence is unavailable or nonexistent may the petitioner 
rely on affidavits. The record does not establish that the citing articles or a citation index are 
unavailable or nonexistent. Thus, while we do not question Dr. n's sincerity, his unsupported 
- 
Page 8 
attestation that the beneficiary is "respectfully cited" is insufficient. The record lacks evidence that the 
beneficiary has been cited at all. Moreover, the most persuasive evidence that the beneficiary's work 
has opened new lines of research would be citations, which are lacking, or letters fiom other 
laboratories actually applying the beneficiary's methods: The petitioner submits no such evidence. 
Dr. , former Director of the Polymer Synthesis Laboratories at the University of 
Massachusetts, Amherst, asserts that the beneficiary's contributions have been significant, but provides 
no examples of new lines of research or polymer manufacture being pursued as ,a result of the 
beneficiary's work. 
Dr. h-, Dean of the College of Engineering at Hanyang University in Korea, asserts that 
his knowledge of the beneficiary is through "personal review of his research work." Dr. does not 
state that he was aware of the beneficiary or his work prior to being requested for a reference letter. Dr. 
reiterates the information provided by ~r.* - concluding that the beneficiary's work is 
"completely original." Dr. continues that the beneficiary's "discoveries have been acknowledged by 
the international community as outstanding, and, therefore, contributed to his stature as an outstanding 
researcher and extraordinary scientist." An unsupported declaration that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized, without evidence of the beneficiary's influence in current polymer 
manufacture or independent research, is insufficient. 
Dr. , an independent technical consultant in polymer characterization and industrial 
applications for ConocoPhillips and other companies, asserts that he met the beneficiary at a conference 
and was "intrigued by-the originality of [the beneficiary's] work and kept on tracking his research 
progress." Dr.- asserts that the beneficiary "developed a whole new methodology to make even 
better materials with great ease." Dr. does not indicate that any company for which he serves as 
a consultant has expressed any interest in adopting the beneficiary's methodologies. Dr. asserts 
that the beneficiary's contributions are apparent by his "abundant publications and presentations." As 
of the date of filing, the beneficiary's published articles included only two presentations either 
preprinted or reproduced in the conference proceedings. The beneficiary's remaining articles had either 
just been submitted or were "in press." The beneficiary had presented his work at six conferences. We 
are not persuaded that this record is "abundant." 
Dr. , Senior Advisor at LAS Associates in Taiwan, asserts that he served as a 
referee of the beneficiary's manuscripts. Dr. 
 asserts that he can "foresee plenty of applications 
for the new materials using this process: from military armor systems to space stmctural materials, fiom 
orthopedic implants to automobile parts, fi-om-high strength vessel and container to sporting goods, 
etc." It can be expected that any research in polymer science has some predicted application. Far more 
persuasive would be evidence that a military or private manufacturer has begun pursuing the 
beneficiary's methods. 
Cao Xianghong, Senior Vice President of the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, asserts that 
he learned of the beneficiary's work on ultra-high-molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibers 
- 
Page 9 
through a "literature search." Mr. further asserts that he was impressed with the originality 
of the beneficiary's work and began a correspondence with the beneficiary. ~r. affirms that 
the beneficiary's research "has revolutionized the way to make original polymeric fiber-reinforced 
composites." It can be expected that any method that has "revolutionized" a manufacturing process 
would have been adopted or at least would be pursued by manufacturers. The record contains no 
evidence that this is the case. Mr. -does not claim that his own company has altered its 
manufacturing process based on the beneficiary's work or is pursuing such a change. Rather, Mr. 
-7. 4 
- attests to his personal belief that "the technology and innovation derived fiom [the 
- 
beneficiary's] research will have great significance for the chemical industry." Such a statement is 
highly speculative. 
Dr., a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and fellow of the 
American Physical Society, asserts that he tracks the beneficiary's work. He also asserts that the 
beneficiary has "revolutionized the way to make complex shaped high strength and impact resistant 
composites with double curvatures." While Dr. 'asserts that this work, when presented, "received 
immediate attention from both industry and academia," the record lacks letters from those in industry 
and academia who are pursuing the beneficiary's methods. Dr.mprovides no examples of 
institutions or private companies actively pursuing the beneficiary's polymer manufacturing methods. 
Dr. f-, Senior Technology Fellow at Aspen Technology and a member of the National 
Academy of Engineering, characterizes the beneficiary as "among the most promising young scientists 
in the field of polymer science and engineering." Subsequently, Dr. 
 discusses the "potential 
applications" of the beneficiary's work. 
 Such statements suggest that the petition was filed 
prematurely, before much of the beneficiary's work had truly had an opportunity to influence the field. 
Our conclusion that the petition was filed, at best, prematurely is supported by the fact that, as of the 
date of filing, the beneficiary had not published his work other than in connection with his presentations 
and no industry had expressed any interest in licensing his patent pending innovation. The record also 
contains no evidence that his preprint and proceedings materials had been cited.. 
Regarding the beneficiary's work for the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an .unsigned letter 
purportedly from, the beneficiary's group leader. As this letter is unsigned, however; it 
has no evidentiary value. Dr. asserts that the beneficiary's current work relates to the use of 
polymeric materials for drug delivery. The record lacks evidence of the significance of this work; such 
as media coverage of projects at the petitioning company on which the beneficiary has worked. 
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. The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work has garnered 
international recognition in the field. 
- I 
Page 10 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly. journals with 
international circulation) in the academic$eld. 
As of the date of filing, the beneficiary had. authored a published preprint and an article in the 
proceedings of a conference. The beneficiary had also presented his work at six conferences. The 
director concluded that the beneficiary's publication record, which included several articles that had yet 
to be published as of the date of filing, was not consistent with international recognition. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) 
requires only authorship, not publication, of articles. While the'regulation does not use the phrase 
"published articles," counsel's assertion is not persuasive. The regulation specifies articles "in" 
journals with an international circulation. If the article has yet to be published, it has not appeared "in" 
anything with an international circulation. The statutory standard in this matter is international 
recognition. We are not persuaded that an article that has yet to be published garners the author any 
international exposure, let alone international recognition. 
Moreover, the Association of American Universities7 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. 
As stated above, eligible aliens should stand apart in the academic community through eminence and 
distinction based on international recognition. The criteria are to be used in evaluating whether a 
researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). The record lacks 
evidence that any independent research group had cited the beneficiary's work. Nor does the record 
contain any other recognition afforded the. beneficiary's presentations that set them apart from the 
presentations of his peers. Thus, we concur with the director that the beneficiary's publication record is 
not consistent with international recognition and, therefore, cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
~hk 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 a limited 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. 
- 
Page 11 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
 The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
 Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.