dismissed EB-1B Case: Psychometrics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17498098 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/Researchers) 
The Petitioner , a software technology company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )( 1 )(B). This frrst preference classification makes immigrant visas available to foreign 
nationals who are internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary met the initial evidentiary requirement by meeting at least two of the 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition . To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding . 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher 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 [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary earned a master of science degree in statistics from I I University in 
2014, and a Ph.D. in measurement and quantitative methods from the same institution in 2015. She 
began her employment with the Petitioner in 2018 as a Data Scientist II, which involves conducting 
research in the field of psychometrics. 
After reviewing the initial evidence and the additional evidence submitted in response to his request 
for evidence (RFE), the Director found that the Beneficiary met only one of the evidentiary criteria, 
relating to her participation as a judge of the work of others in her field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that the Beneficiary also meets two additional criteria, relating to her authorship of scholarly 
books or articles and her original scholarly research contributions to the field of psychometrics. Upon 
review, we disagree with and withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence of the non citizen's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has served as a peer reviewer for conferences 
such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2019 annual meeting and the 2018 
Connected Leaming Summit, as well as for journals such as Applied Psychological Measurement and 
Frontiers in Psychology. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
professors and researchers. USCIS Policy Memorandum, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14, PM-602-0005.1 (Dec. 
22, 2010). 
2 
Evidence of the noncitizen 's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence authorship of her co-authorship of several papers that were 
presented at conferences, along with evidence that some of these papers were published in the 
proceedings of the conferences. In his RFE, the Director sought evidence that these materials were 
"scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation in the academic field," 
but did not specifically address the deficiencies in the submitted evidence. The RFE called for the 
title page of each scholarly article published by the Beneficiary, as well as evidence that they were 
published in scholarly journals with international circulation. The Petitioner responded with additional 
evidence, but the Director concluded that the RFE was not complied with, and that the evidence did 
not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
Upon review, we note that many of the papers authored by the Beneficiary are not accompanied by 
evidence of publication, whether in a conference proceedings or a journal with international 
circulation. However, the evidence does establish that several of her papers were published in 
conference proceedings, such as Quantitative Psychology Research: The 78th Annual Meeting of the 
Psychometric Society and Advanced Data Mining and Applications: 5th International Conference, 
ADMA 2009. Therefore, we disagree with the Director's conclusion and find that the Beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the noncitizen 's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to 
the academic field; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary meets this criterion due to her original scholarly 
research contributions to the field of psychometrics. However, because it has established that she 
meets the required two evidentiary criteria, we need not evaluate her qualification for additional 
criteria. Instead, we will consider the evidence submitted in support of that criterion together with the 
totality of the record in conducting a final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether a petitioner has established that a beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in 
their field of expertise. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary 
meets that standard. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the contributions the Beneficiary has made to the field of 
psychometrics, in the areas of academic testing and psychological quantitative methods. Regarding 
testin , it rimarily focuses on the two letters from I I of the I ci 
ir-----1-------__J where the Beneficiary was previously employed as a researcher. 2 
indicates that in this role, the Beneficiary conducted and managed research in support of 
~ed_u_c_a-ti-on~al assessment tests developed byl I She goes on to describe several projects in which 
2 All of the reference letters in the record were thoroughly analyzed, including those not directly mentioned in this decision. 
3 
the Beneficiary's work resulted in improvements to educational assessments developed by the 
company which provided more detailed feedback to students, guidelines on how best to detect 
differential item functioning (DIF) in assessments and make them fairer, and a more concise test to 
identify students at risk for learning disabilities. Although these improvements led to better 
assessments which benefitted students and educators, the letter does not show that they were 
recognized as outstanding innovations in the field. 
The second letter froml I submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), goes into more detail on these projects, and notes that the Beneficiary's work improved the 
I of an assessment test "used by more than'-------,-------,---------' -==========----~ '-----------~' She also indicates that the Beneficiary's work in improving the screening 
test for at-risk students was presented at the 2017 I ., I 
and 2018....._ ____________________ ~ conferences. While these letters 
verify that the Beneficiary made important contributions to the improvement of her former employer's 
educational assessment products, and that these products were then used to provide more accurate data 
to educators and students in schools using these products, it does not show that her work was 
recognized as outstanding by her peers in the field of psychometrics. I I states that the 
paper selection criteria for the conferences at which the Beneficiary presented her work are "very 
strict," but does not allude to specific criteria which might show that acceptance by the conferences is 
equivalent to or indicative of international recognition of the work as outstanding. 
Another reference letter focusing on the Beneficiary's research in the area of educational assessments 
was submitted by her doctoral advisor a~ 
0 
I University,__ _________ ____, He 
provides a description of the Beneficiary's research while under his supervision, including projects 
aimed at improving thq.__ ______________ ____,Jg in academic assessments, and states 
that this research "has become influential in the educational/psychological measurement and 
quantitative methods field." A S]'.)ecific example highlighted byl lis an article that 
was included in an academic text,I ~ = I He states that this 
article "greatly advanced the academic community's understanding o
1 
a com
7
licated psychometrics 
issue," and notes in a second letter that it has been used as an example in workshops. Although 
publication of scholarly books and articles in the academic field is sufficient to meet the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F), for the purposes of a final merits analysis this evidence must be evaluated 
to determine whether it is indicative of international recognition as outstanding. 3 Here, we note that 
the second letter froml l a researcher with the U{ De_1]rtment of Defense, states that they 
cited to this article in their own work, and also within their workshop presentation. However, 
they do not explain the context of this citation or how it influenced their work, and the citing paper is 
not a part of the record. Further, this evidence is not sufficient to establish that others in the academic 
field consider this work to be outstanding . 
.__ ______ ___,lo .__ _________ ___,also submitted a reference letter focusing on the 
Beneficiary's work on academic assessments, although he does not explain how he became aware of 
the details of her research. He describes her work in improving the reliability of subscores in 
computerized adaptive testing (CAT), as well as her improved method for detecting DIF in CAT. D I !states that she was elected as a session chair at the 20171 I annual conference as a result 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
4 
of this work, and also that her contributions to the field of psychometrics led to her being invited as a 
reviewer for conferences and journals. Another letter froml I President of! I 
confirms the Beneficiary's service as a reviewer for the 2014 conference and session chair for the 2017 
conference, and states that "only internationally recognized scientists" are invited to serve in these 
capacities. However, we note that a list ofreviewers for the 2014 conference indicates that all of the 
more than 50 abstract reviewers were graduate students, andl I does not describe the selection 
criteria or duties for session chairs. While thel I clearly relied on the Beneficiary's expertise in 
psychometrics to perform these voluntary duties, the evidence does not show her service in this manner 
separated her from her peers. 
In addition to the above, the record reflects that the Beneficiary also serves as a review editor for the 
journal Frontiers in Psychology: Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, as confirmed by a letter 
from an associate editor. The letter describes the Beneficiary as a "well-established expert" and notes 
that she has provided high-quality reviews for the journal, but does not explain the distinction between 
a review editor and a peer reviewer, or indicate that she has performed editorial or other duties that 
would allow her to stand out in her field. We note that the journal's website indicates that the 
Beneficiary is one of more than 550 review editors.4 
As well as serving as a peer reviewer for conferences, as noted above the Beneficiary also presented 
several papers, some of which the evidence shows were included in the proceedings of those 
conferences. On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on the quality of the conferences at which the 
Beneficiary presented her work, highlighting sections of some of the reference letters submitted. For 
example,I I states in his second letter that "the fact [the Beneficiary's] work has 
repeatedly been included in the proceedings of these leading conferences is clear evidence of her 
outstanding research capabilities in the field of psychometrics." However, we do not assume that all 
papers published in an influential journal, or presented at a prestigious conference, are themselves 
influential or indicative of recognition as outstanding. Rather, we look to the reaction of other experts 
in the field. As noted above, the record includes evidence that at least one researcher has cited to the 
Beneficiary's published work and has referred to it in a workshop presentation, but does not 
demonstrate that her work is generally considered to be outstanding in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of the Beneficiary's work in her current position since 2017. 
I I Head o~ I Operations, writes that she developed a psychometric screening 
test to identify drivers who are more prone to drive unsafely or act violently, and tailored the test to 
different geographic markets. He states that this test has been "validated in more than a dozen 
international markets," been taken by more than a million new drivers, and has reduced the rate of 
I !incidents across the Petitioner's platform.I !further notes that the Beneficiary's 
test is unique in thel I industry and has allowed the Petitioner to distinguish itself from 
competitors. However, while her work has benefitted the Petitioner in terms of operations, profit and 
reputation, the record does not include evidence that the Beneficiary's psychometric test has been 
recognized beyond her employer as outstanding in her field at the international level. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary is a talented researcher in the field of psychometrics who has 
contributed to the field through her conference presentations and to her employers. However, after 
4 https://www.frontiersin.org/joumals/psychology#editorial-board 
5 
consideration of the totality of the evidence, including her published papers, history of peer review, 
and the opinions of experts in her academic field, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
that she enjoys the level of recognition required under the requested classification. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6