dismissed EB-1B Case: Polymers, Coatings And Pultrusions

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 2 3 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S.l)epartment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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)(1 )(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Th 
Ron Rosenb'"'L1',.._., 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is engaged in the production of fiberglass building products. 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. § 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
Research and Development (R&D) Project Manager. 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 submits a brief and new exhibits. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with 
the director that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition as 
outstanding. 
Specifically, when the AAO simply "counts" 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.P.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 does not set the beneficiary apart in the 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the 
regulatory criteria.' Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fe9. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record lacks the actual job offer issued by the petitioner to the 
beneficiary. 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), aff'd , 
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. Statute 
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--
1 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States --
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(IT) for a comparable position with a university or institution of l).igher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(Ill) 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. Job Offer from 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-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field . 
In the instant matter, the petitioner has not submitted its job offer letter to the beneficiary as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). In fact, in her letter dated March 21, 2012 accompanying the initial petition, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
counsel erroneously claimed that pursuant to 8 C .F.R. 204.5(h)(5), an offer of employment in the United 
States is not required for this classification .2 
The petitioner's letter dated March 21, 2012, addressed to the United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), does not cons
titute a job offer letter to the beneficiary. This letter contains one section 
entitled "Permanent Position Offered to [the beneficiary] Research and Development (R&D) Project 
Manager," which states that "we [the petitioner] are seeking the permanent services of a Research and 
Development (R&D) Project Manager with deep expertise in polymer coatings and pultrusions ," and 
concludes with a list ofqualifications needed for "this individual." This letter, addressed to USCIS, is not 
addressed directly to the beneficiary. The ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the 
offeree, not a third party. 3 Furthermore, it is unclear from this letter whether the beneficiary has even been 
offered the permanent position, as it contains non-specific language such as "we are seeking the permanent 
services of a Research and Development (R&D) Project Manager" and "this individual." In light of the 
above, the petitioner failed to submit required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. Beneficiary's Qua~ifications 
A. Law 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be 
accompanied by: 
(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 
and/or 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 March 22, 2012 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field of 
polymers, coatings and pultrusions. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least 
2 8 C.P.R. 204.5(h)(5) relates to the classification of an alien with extraordinary ability, not to the 
classification of an outstanding professor or researcher. 
3 See Black 's Law Dictionary 1189-90 (9th ed. 2009) (defining "offer" as "the act or an instance of presenting 
something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms, made in a 
way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an acceptance, having been sought, will result in 
a binding contract;" defining "offeree" as "[o]ne to whom an offer is made;" and defining "offeror" as "[o]ne 
who makes an offer"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
three years of teaching and/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. At issue in this matter is whether the petitioner 
has demonstrated that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
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)(l)(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 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.P.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." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 4 Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
4 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(P)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.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.P.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.P.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 )(l)(A)(i). 
!d. 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. 5 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. 
B. Analysis 
1. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner initially asserted that the beneficiary was submitting qualifying evidence under four of the six 
criteria . The director determined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence under two of the criteria . 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under two 
of the criteria . 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievem ent in the 
academi c field 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set fmth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) , and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to 
this criterion. 
5 The classification at issue in Kazarian , section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under 
three criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, requires 
qualifying evidence under only two criteria . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to this 
criterion. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's citation record and articles which cite or briefly reference 
the beneficiary's work. The director concluded that the submitted evidence did not establish eligibility under 
this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest or address the director's conclusion . Therefore , the 
AAO considers this particular issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AA0). 6 
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 beneficiary has participated as a referee and peer reviewer for 
manuscripts submitted for publication in the same academic field. The AAO concurs with the director that 
this evidence qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
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." 
As evidence of the beneficiary's contributions to the academic field, the petitioner submitted letters from the 
peers, colleagues and other individuals within the academic field. The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
6 Regardless, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that citations or brief references to the 
beneficiary ' s work do not constitute published material about the beneficiary's work (emphasis added). 
Articles which cite or briefly discuss the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author' s own work or recent 
work in the field generally, and are not about the beneficiary's work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
who was the beneficiary's Ph.D . advisor, collaborated with the beneficiary in several projects and co­
authored papers with the beneficiary. In his letter , discussed the beneficiary's research , beginning 
from the time the beneficiary first joined his research group to her present research at the petitioning company. 
Regarding the beneficiary's initial research involving the synthesis of a large series of unsaturated polyesters , 
highlighted that this "is the first reported comprehensive study on these systems" and was the basis 
of a 2004 conference presentation. Of the beneficiary's research on the effect of incorporation of organically 
modified clay nanoparticles on the properties of the donor-acceptor UV curable system, highlighted 
that this "represents the first time that the incorporation of nanoparticles had been reported for a donor -acceptor 
UV -curable polymer system" and formed the basis of a journal publication. highlighted the 
beneficiary's subsequent research in the properties of clay-polymer nanocomposites, claiming that this work 
formed a "significant breakthrough in the field of UV cured nanocomposites containing clay nanoparticles " as 
well as formed the basis of additional research funding and subsequent research . also highlighted 
the beneficiary's work with a graduate student in developing a novel UV curable low surface energy coatings 
technology, which resulted in a patent application being filed and industry interest in the technology . He 
explained that this technology is "a break through because only a very small amount of the expensive 
component responsible for low surface energy is needed to yield a coating that can be applied as ali uid, rapidly 
cured using UV light and then can function as a release layer at an economical cost." then 
highlights two other discoveries that the beneficiary made in another project, stating that these discoveries 
"appeared to be very promising" and "[w]hile further work is required, this could represent a breakthrough 
technology for the protection of aircraft in the event of fire ." concludes that the beneficiary's 
technical discoveries "set her apart from other scientists" and that her research "is both novel and has proven to 
be immediately able to be applied to the market." 
While 
I explains the beneficiary's research in detailed, highly technical terms and why her research 
is novel, fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research is being applied in the 
field . highlights the fact that the beneficiary's work has resulted in one patent application which 
has generated industry interest. However, as will be discussed below, the beneficiary's patent application is not 
proof of the beneficiary's contributions to the academic field. also highlights the fact that the 
beneficiary ' s work has resulted in additional research funding and has formed the basis of research publication s, 
but he fails to establish that the beneficiary ' s research has resulted in contributions to the academic field rather 
than simply the work of or the petitioner. As to statements regarding the potential of 
some of the beneficiary ' s research to be "promising" or to "represent a breakthrough," speculation as to 
potential future contributions cannot establish that the beneficiary has already contributed to the academic 
field . Overall, letter fails to explain how the beneficiary's research findings have contributed to 
the academic field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
asserts that he was first introduced to the beneficiary 's 
research when he was a 
Materials at and through her various conference presentations. attests that the beneficiary 
is "one of the very few leading researchers in this area [of polymers and coatings] with the proved record of 
significant discoveries which earned her international recognition in her field." briefly describes 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
the beneficiary's research in the area of unsaturated polyester chemistry and UV-curable coatings based on 
unsaturated polyesters, and notes that her work has resulted in one patent, patent application s, and journal 
publications. · then asserts that the beneficiary's development of a novel method to exfoliate 
layered silicates in a polymer matrix is "outstanding ... significant and [a] breakthrough achievement . .. 
[which] has led and will continue [to] lead to very important developments in the area with potential 
applications in electronic and packaging applications." also highlights the beneficiary ' s current 
work "towards development of novel, 'green', pultrudable resins." concludes that the beneficiary 
is distinguished from her peers and "will continue to make significant contributions to the area of polymer and 
pultrusion technology." 
letter fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
academic field as a whole. While he asserts that the beneficiary's research "has led and will continue [to] lead 
to very important developments in the area with potential applications in electronic and packaging applications" 
and is working towards the development of novel, green resins, does not explain how the 
beneficiary's research is actually being applied in the field. Furthermore, while highlights the 
beneficiary's patent and patent applications, these are not proof of the beneficiary's contributions to the 
academic field. Overall, letter fails to explain how the beneficiary 's research findings have 
contributed to the academic field as a whole, and his letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding 
the beneficiary's contributions and reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from and 
asserts that she does not personally know the 
beneficiary, but is familiar with the beneficiary's work through her publications , presentations, and conference 
participation. briefly discusses the beneficiary's research. _>asserts that "[t]he significance 
of this original scientific contribution is evidenced by potential application of this landmark research in the areas 
of barrier coatings for electronic packaging and food packaging." further asserts that the 
beneficiary's patent "will lead to advances in microelectronics manufacture wherein conventional fabrication 
techniques can be replaced by precise laser machining techniques, which would also be an inherently greener 
technology." concludes that the beneficiary "has made significant contributions to the area of 
radiation curable coatings and is among the few leading scientists in North America in this area." While 
indicates that beneficiary 's research will have "potential" applications in the packaging industry and 
"will lead to advances in microelectronics manufacture," speculation as to potential future contributions cannot 
establish that the beneficiary has already contributed to the academic field. fails to explain with 
specificity how the beneficiary's research is actually being applied in the field . 
The petitioner submitted a letter from at 
the petitioning company? briefly explains why the beneficiary was a "strategic hire" and 
summarizes the beneficiary ' s research projects at the petitioning company. concludes that 
the beneficiary is "an indispensable team lead" who has contributed to the growth and success of the 
7 It is unclear from letter whether he can be considered an expert in the academic field of 
polymers, coatings and pultrusions . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
petitioning company and who has left "a noticeable footprint in the field." letter does not 
explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research findings have contributed to the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
who has worked in the same research department 
at with the beneficiary. highlights the beneficiary's work on developing a patented 
cathodic protective coating system. states: "The broader applications of the techniques to 
composites was the value she was expected to add in her new position with [the petitioning company] and it 
appears that she has done so based on the details in her curriculum vitae." also highlights the 
beneficiary's patents on UV curable technologies and her publication history. states that the 
beneficiary's "significant scientific contributions are built on her unique industrial research experience and 
credentials" and concludes that the beneficiary "has made original contributions of major significance as clearly 
signified by three patent/patent applications." letter fails to explain with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research findings have 
contributed to the academic field as a whole. His letter contains primarily 
conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation. As will be discussed below, 
although highlights the beneficiary's patent/patent applications, the beneficiary's patent/patent 
applications alone do not constitute evidence of contributions to the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
Center, who has collaborated on various research projects with the beneficiary at , co-authored two 
papers with her, and is a co-inventor on an invention disclosure. briefly describes the research project 
he worked on with the beneficiary, which led to a patent application and interest from a large multinational 
company to license this technology. also briefly describes the beneficiary's skills in diverse areas of 
chemical sciences, and her mentorship of students and fellows at concludes that the 
beneficiary's "extraordinary skills along with her proven track record of leadership abilities sets [the 
beneficiary] apart from most scientists" and "clearly shows that she is [sic] has risen among the very top 
position in the. field." letter fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research findings 
have contributed to the academic field as a whole, and his letter contains primarily conclusory assertions 
regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from "in the Electronics business," 
and who previously worked indirectly with the beneficiary at · asserts that the beneficiary 
"continues to be a critical member in the field of the development of polymers and coatings as evidence by her 
involvement in peer reviews . . . , the patent applications she has applied for .. . , her scholarly articles and 
Textbook Chapter and her activity in the also briefly mentions 
the beneficiary's work at the petitioning company, which she asserts is ground breaking research and has proven 
to be a vital resource in that corporation ." letter fails to explain with specificity how the 
beneficiary's research findings have contributed to the academic field as a whole, and her letter contains 
primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's achievements. 
8 It is unclear from letter whether she can be considered an expert in the academic field of 
polymers, coatings and pultrusions . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
, who is familiar with the beneficiary "through extensive research 
collaborations'' at briefly describes his joint research project with the benefici ary and the 
beneficiary ' s current work at the petitioning company, which he asserts "will enable [the petitioner] to meet 
market demand for green products." asserts that the demand for green and sustainable construction 
materials is growing and that the beneficiary's research and its practical application "are instrumental to the 
development of next-generation products meeting that demand." . concludes that the beneficiary "has 
already made and continues to make scientific contributions well beyond the contributions made by a typical 
scientist focusing on applied research in the field of coatings arid polymeric materials." letter fails 
to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research findings have contributed to the academic field as a 
whole, and his letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's achievements. While 
highlights the beneficiary's research in developing next-generation green products and the growing 
market for such products, he fails to explain how the beneficiary's research is actually being applied in the field. 
Speculation as to potential future contributions cannot establish that the beneficiary has already contributed 
to the academic field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitiOner submitted additional letters from 
colleagues and peers. Through these letters, the petitioner emphasized the beneficiary's patents as well as her 
influence on other researchers within the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from who is a formulation scientist at ..__ __ 
states she was introduced to the beneficiary's research while she was a graduate student at l 
The record reveals that she is one of the beneficiary's co-authors. ...._ ~ · · describes her own graduate 
research focus as spanning from the beneficiary's discoveries, and asserts that "[u]nquestionably, [the 
beneficiary's] previous research was instrumental for me to be able to develop my research." then 
asserts that the beneficiary has made "a significant contribution to the area of UV -curable nanocomposite 
coatings." However, the fact that the beneficiary's research impacted the research of another graduate student at 
the same department as the beneficiary, without any information as to the significance of the impacted research, 
does not establish that the beneficiary has made contributions to the academic field as a whole. 
assertion that the beneficiary has made "a significant contribution to the area of UV -curable nanocomposite 
coatings" is conclusory and bears little, if any, weight. 
The petitioner submitted a second letter from : notes the four citations to his and 
the beneficiary 's joint patent application, and claims that this "higher number of patent citations . .. is notable 
and indicates that [the beneficiary's] discoveries are instrumental to further original research." then 
explains that the joint invention disclosure has been cited by a global company on three different spin-off 
discoveries and by a Japanese company, and has resulted in industry interest. concludes that, "[g]iven 
the geographical spread of [the beneficiary ' s] citations and the global industry interest over [the beneficiary's] 
9 It is unclear from letter whether he can be considered an expert in the academic field of 
polymers , coatings and pultrusion s. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
discoveries, without a question-[the beneficiary's] work is internationally known and recognized." 
also notes that the beneficiary' s work has been "instrumental to my own continued research" and that an entire 
chapter in his Ph.D. dissertation was built upon work done by the beneficiary. However, the fact that the 
beneficiary's patent application has been cited four times, without any detailed information as to the 
significance of the citing research or the claimed "spin-off discoveries," does not establish that the beneficiary 
has made contributions to the academic field as a whole. As will be discussed below, the fact that beneficiary's 
research resulted in a patent application is not proof of the beneficiary's contributions to the academic field. 
Furthermore, provides no factual basis to support his assertion that four citations to a patent 
application are considered high. In addition, the fact that the beneficiary's research was "instrumental" to Dr. 
dissertation, without any information as to the significance of dissertation, does 
not establish that the beneficiary has made contributions to the academic field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
who states that he was the beneficiary's direct and indirect supervisor when she worked for __ --:::::::::::::::::: 
and then briefly discusses the beneficiary's current work at the petitioning 
company based on her curriculum vitae. concludes that the beneficiary "has a solid record of 
continued significant contributions to the area of coatings technology and I believe that her Ph.D. training will 
enable her to continue making important contributions to this area and also in the area of composites." Mr. 
letter fails to explain with specificity how the beneficiary's research findings have contributed to the 
academic field as a whole. His letter not only contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's contributions, but his assertions are based upon the beneficiary's curriculum vitae, not the 
beneficiary's reputation within the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
these committees. 
briefly describes the missions of 
and the beneficiary's participation in 
asserts that the beneficiary "is a qualified member for this committee due to her 
outstanding contributions and discoveries in the area of polymers, coatings and pultrusions," and that she has 
been a "valuable support to the letter fails to explain 
with specificity how the beneficiary's research findings have contributed to the academic field, and his letter 
contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions. 
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." !d. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity , detail, 
10 It is unclear from letter whether he can be considered an expert in the academic field of 
polymers, coatings and pultrusions. 
11 It is unclear from letter whether he can be considered an expert in the academic field of 
polymers, coatings, and pultrusions . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 
r&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. users may, in 
its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, USers 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 evid~nce of eligibility; users may, as we have 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 r&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users 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 Soffici, 22 r&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (eomm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 r&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! 
eomm'r 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain conclusory assertions of widespread recogmtton and 
contributions, without specifically identifying the contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions have influenced the field . users 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). Similarly, merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. F edin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. eir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). In addition, several of the letters were 
written by the beneficiary's immediate collaborators, colleagues or employer, including by individuals whom 
the record fails to establish can be considered experts in the academic field of polymers and coatings, and 
pultrusions. As such, the letters, alone, are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's research can be 
considered a contribution to the academic field as a whole. 
As additional evidence of the beneficiary's contributions to the academic field, the petitioner submitted evidence 
of the beneficiary's awarded patent and 3 patent applications. In particular, the beneficiary, along with her 
colleagues 
The 
beneficiary's three other patent applications are still pending. 
The petitioner also submitted two letters from 
Foundation, which leads the patenting efforts at ~- __ and engages in marketing and potentially licensing 
patentable inventions. In his first letter, tlists the beneficiary's three main invention disclosures, one 
of which was awarded a U.S. patent. explains that in order to be awarded a U.S. patent, an 
invention must meet three criteria: novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness. Furthermore, 
explains that one of the beneficiary's pending patent applications has generated industry interest from a large 
global company and two other "major players." - ~- attests: "As one can imagine, patenting, licensing, 
and commercialization of an invention do not happen simultaneously and it takes a significant amount of time 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
and resources to bring a new technology to the market." concludes that the "high level of interest 
in the industry in [the beneficiary's] invention is a good indication of the commercial value of her current 
breakthrough inventions and indicative of the commercial potential for [the beneficiary's] future inventions." In 
his second letter, affirms that the beneficiary's three patent/patent applications have received 
interest from eleven different companies that have resulted in executed confidentiality agreements and/or 
material transfer agreements "to enable further discussion and/or evaluation of the technologies." Again, Mr. 
attests that 
that the "level of interest demonstrates the commercial relevance and potential of [the 
beneficiary's] work." 
The petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence regarding the beneficiary's patent and patent applications, as 
well as the industry interest sunounding these discoveries, constitutes additional evidence of the beneficiary's 
original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. However, the AAO has stated that 
a patent or patent applications are 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 Department of Transportation, 22 I&N 
Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm'r 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case­
by-case basis. !d. A patent primarily recognizes the originality of the idea, but it does not demonstrate that 
the petitioner made a contribution to the academic field as a whole. In the case here, the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating the beneficiary's research is original, but the petitioner failed 
to establish how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the field as a whole. Furthermore, there is no 
guarantee that the beneficiary's patent applications will result in the patents actually being awarded. 
Moreover, the actual present impact of the beneficiary's patent and patent applications has not been 
established. While the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary's patent and patent applications have 
garnered industry interest, industry interest that has resulted in only "further discussion and/or evaluation of 
the technologies" falls short of establishing that the beneficiary's discoveries have made an actual , present 
impact on the field and constitute contributions to the academic field. Instead, industry interest is speculative 
about how the petitioner's discoveries may affect the field at some point in the future. As attests, 
the commercialization of an invention "do[es] not happen simultaneously and it takes a significant amount of 
time and resources to bring a new technology to the market." Eligibility must be established at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved 
at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). The fact remains that any measurable impact that results from the petitioner's 
discoveries will likely occur in the future. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the requirements of the criterion 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted evidence of articles and a book chapter authored by the beneficiary. 
Thus, the petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under the plain language of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) . 
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.P.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). The next step 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)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. 
2. 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 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 her own circle of collaborators in the final merits 
determination. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Counsel discusses the prestige of the journals for which the 
beneficiary has reviewed manuscripts. Counsel also submits evidence establishing that the beneficiary has been 
a productive reviewer, including having completed a record number of 39 reviews for a single journal. While 
impressive, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's record as a peer reviewer sets her apart from 
other researchers in the field. Generally, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys 
international recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as 
evidence that she 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 petitioner cannot establish that the beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of 
or consistent with international recognition. 
Here, the petitioner submitted a letter from the 
attesting that the journal requested the beneficiary to review articles "due to her internationally recognized 
expertise in coatings and composite materials." The petitioner submitted a letter from the 
attesting that the journal relies on "technically qualified peer reviewers who 
are experts in their fields." The petitioner also submitted a letter from the 
. attesting that the journal has a "rigorous selection criteria" for peer­
reviewers. All of these letters make conclusory assertions regarding the selection criteria for peer reviewers, but 
fail to provide any specific, factual information as to the actual selection criteria utilized for peer reviewers. 
Again, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without credible evidence that the beneficiary 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 record 
fails to establish that the beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of or consi stent with international 
recognition. 
The beneficiary's publication and citation history are relevant considerations when evaluating the beneficiary's 
recognition in the field. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, counsel emphasizes the distinguished nature of 
the journals that have published the beneficiary's articles. While such publication demonstrates the promising 
nature of the beneficiary's work, more persuasive evidence is how the beneficiary's work was received upon 
publication, i.e., her citation history. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's published articles, 
which have been cited six times in the aggregate, have been cited at a level consistent with international 
recognition. Similarly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's patent applications, which have 
been cited four times in the aggregate, have been cited at a level consistent with international recognition. 
While counsel asserts that the beneficiary's citation record must be considered within the "narrow nature and 
uniqueness" of the beneficiary' s research focus," the AAO emphasizes that the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field in general, not only within a 
narrow and unique specialized area. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) (defining an "academic field" as "a body of 
specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher 
education"); USCIS Policy Memorandum Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 
(December 22, 2010) (stating that by regulatory definition, a body of specialized knowledge is larger than a 
very small area of specialization). 
The AAO acknowledges that the beneficiary has co-authored a textbook chapter on corrosion chemistry. The 
petitioner submitted a letter from the beneficiary's co-author, in which he explains that 
the book chapter outlines the theory of corrosion with respect to metals, the different forms of corrosion, factors 
that cause corrosion, and the different approaches to prevent corrosion. explains that 
corrosion chemistry is very important in "laying the foundations of Paints and polymer science and technology" 
and is fundamental to "a paint technologist." . : also explains that the textbook is used in 15 
colleges teaching a course in Paints Technology in India, and .has sold nearly 2000 copies. While noteworthy, 
the fact that the beneficiary has co-authored a textbook chapter on corrosion chemistry does not establish that 
the beneficiary is intemationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field of polymers and coatings. 
The AAO acknowledges that corrosion chemistry may be a foundational course for someone entering the 
polymer and coatings field, however, the fact remains that corrosion chemistry is a separate and distinct 
academic field from polymers and coatings. 
On appeal, counsel emphasizes the beneficiary's patent/patent applications and the novelty of her work. 
However, as discussed above, the fact that the beneficiary' s research is original does not establish that it rises 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 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a Ph.D. 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." 
On appeal, counsel emphasizes that other researchers have relied upon the beneficiary's work and used it to 
build upon their own research. However, as previously discussed, the narrow scope within which the 
beneficiary's work was relied upon, i.e., by two other graduate students within the beneficiary's same university 
department, without any explanation of the significance of this impacted research, is not indicative of 
international recognition. 
Finally, on appeal counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary's research has received state and federal funding.
12 
However, the AAO notes that research grants are principally designed to fund future research, not to honor or 
recognize past achievement. The petitioner submitted no objective, documentary evidence showing that the 
research grants were awarded based upon the beneficiary's international recognition as an outstanding 
researcher. 
In light of the above, our final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying evidence, 
participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not garnered significant 
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 remaining evidence in the record, when considered as a whole, also fails to 
establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the academic field. 
IV. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher, who has won the respect of her 
collaborators, employers and peers. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of 
an alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision . In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought . Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 The petitioner submitted a letter from , stating that 
state 
funding was given to collaborative research in which the beneficiary participated.