dismissed EB-1B Case: Quantitative Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11283656 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 24, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, an investment firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or 
researcher in the field of quantitative analysis. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Director 
overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that 
the Beneficiary qualifies under the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these 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. 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 )(1 )(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 
internationally 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 received both his Master of Science degree and Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from 
I !University in 2017. From January 2017 until February 2018, he worked as a quantitative 
research associate for I I Additionally, he served as a quantitative analytics intern at 
.__ _____ _.for approximately two months in 201 q The Renefici,ry is currently employed as a 
quantitative researcher reporting to the Petitioner's 1 ..... _____ _.]of I I Options 
Research. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in his field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly articles. As he 
therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record when 
conducting the final merits determination. 
A. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence 2, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
1 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
professors and researchers. See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with 
Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 
20 (Dec. 22,2010), https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 3 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director erred in stating that the "expert testimonials were 
insufficient to prove that [the Beneficiary] made significant contributions to the field," despite having 
"acknowledged that he satisfied the criterion for 'significant contributions to the field' in [the] analysis 
of the regulatory criteria." 4 The language of the regulatory criterion 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) 
requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field." In his discussion of this criterion, the Director stated only that the "[ s ]ubmitted 
evidence meets the plain language" and therefore there was no acknowledgement of the Beneficiary's 
"significant" contributions in Part I ("Analysis of Criteria") of the Director's decision. Furthermore, 
in Part II ("Final Merits Determination") of the decision, the Director noted that letters of support 
limited to those "who have employed, instructed, or collaborated with [the Beneficiary] ... are not 
evidence that the Beneficiary has earned a broad reputation." 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's 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. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). Therefore, 
to the extent that the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language 
requirements of specific evidentiary criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level, his analysis was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to 
the requested immigrant visa classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted June 2019 emails thanking him for reviewing one manuscript each for Journal of Low 
Temperature Physics, Journal of Mathematical Finance, and Journal of Modern Physics. 5 The 
Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary's peer review service is evidence of his "international 
renown." The Petitioner points to a letter froml I associate professor atl I 
University, who states that the Beneficiary "has provided peer review of papers submitted to the 
journals, Quantitative Analysis for Low Temperature Physics and Applications of Superconducting 
3 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activities, research contributions, published and presented work, and citation evidence, and explained why that evidence, 
as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level. 
4 The Petitioner misstates the Director's decision. In Part TT ("Final Merits Determination"), the Director's decision 
actually stated: "It must first be stressed that letters alone are insufficient to prove the alien's original scientific or scholarly 
research contributions to the academic field." 
5 The record includes information from Scimago listing the "Journal & Country Rank" for Journal of Low Temperature 
Physics as "58," but there is no explanation as to the significance of this ranking. The Petitioner also provided material 
from Publons.com for Journal of Mathematical Finance and from Researchgate.net for Journal of Modern Physics offering 
general information about the journals. 
3 
and Magnetic Materials." 6 The record, however, does not include evidence to corroborate D 
I Is statement that the Beneficiary has reviewed papers for these two journals. 7 
The appellate submission also includes a letter froml I a software application 
developer withl I and formerly a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of 
Physics and Astronomy a~ I university.I I contends that the Beneficiary "has 
peer reviewed articles in a number of top journals, including the Journal of Low Temperature Physics 
and the Journal of Modern Physics . ... I can confirm that [the Beneficiary] would not have been 
selected had he not performed internationally recognized research in the field." 8 
An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine 
if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for this classification. 9 Here, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's frequency and level ofreview is indicative of 
or consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. In many 
scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process through which articles are 
selected for publication or presentation at conferences. Participation in the peer review process does 
not automatically demonstrate that an individual is internationally recognized as outstanding in his 
academic field. Without evidence that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
evidence that he has completed reviews for a substantial number of distinguished journals or 
conferences relative to others in his field, served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or 
publications, or chaired evaluation committees for reputable conferences, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary's peer review experience has resulted in, or is reflective o±: recognition 
at an international level for being outstanding in the field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record include letters of sujport 
discussing his research projects atl luniversity,I I and 
the Petitioner. 1° For exam le re arding the Beneficiary's research involving the laterally confined 
states that the Beneficia investi ated "the effects of interaction 
between 
and found that ' ,.__---------------------~="""""-,r=--=~'------7-------------' 
.-------'--'--------1forther indicates that '-----------------------! the Beneficiary "discovered a completely novel ___________ _. phase" and that his 
contribution "amounts to the discovery of a new state of matter," but the record does not show that 
this work has been extensively cited, has widely impacted his field, or has otherwise risen to the level 
of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's research relatin to unconventional su erconductors 
I I a postdoctoral fellow at the,__ ____________ __. at the 
6 1 I uares that bf previously served as a visiting professor atl I University. 
7 Nor does I indicate that he has served in an editorial capacity for Quantitative Analysis for Low 
Temperature Physics or Applications of Superconducting and Magnetic Materials. 
81 I does not indicate that he has served in an editorial capacity for Journal of Low Temperature Physics or 
Journal of Modern Physics. 
9 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 19 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area). 
10 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
11 
" In addition 
states that the Beneficiary "predicted and proved tha'L------,l,-----------; 
._e_x_i_s-ts_f_o_r_s_u_p_e_rc_.'onducto~ I' and "developed an ex{'::.p.:::er:.;:i;:;.:m.:..:e:::n::..:.t..:.to.::......:u:::s-=-e....!:;-_______ ~.----,, 
waves to excite collective modes and measure their L I response." While 
I O ldescribes this work as "promising" and indicates that it enhances "the possibility of 
further practical application of superconductors in science, technology and industry," his statements 
are insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's findings have influenced the field of quantitative 
physics in a substantial way that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in his 
field. 
Additionallv I I discusses the Beneficiary's deve)opm~nt of mathematical models while 
working fo~ I as a quantitative analytics intern. I j indicates that that the Beneficiary 
"used the data in the interest rate derivative market to infer the interest rate dynamics, and directl, 
include the dynamics in the equity derivatives pricing." I I further states that .... I ___ _.J 
equity derivatives business line adopted and immediately implemented [the Beneficiary's] research 
and used it to price exotic option products the firm traded or sold to clients," but the record does not 
indicate that this work has affected the financial industry beyond I I such that it renders the 
Beneficiary recognized internationally as outstanding. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's work as a quantitative research associate for I I, D 
~--~I asserts that the Beneficiary "performed research to search for quantitative signals that 
facilitate electronic market making, breaking new ground in quantitative analysis as applied to the 
financial industry." Whilel I indicates that the Beneficia!)''s "models and codes were 
adopted by the company and are still used today for I I daily business operations to 
automatically make trading decisions for franchise low-touch business and Asia's market making 
desk," he did not offer specific examples of how the Beneficiary's work has been widely utilized 
beyon~ lor has otherwise influenced the field at a level commensurate with being 
internationally recognized as outstanding. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's work for the Petitioner involving thd I valuation 
strategies and the development of mathematical models to solve complex 1 I problems, I I 
I I the Petitioner's I I ofl I Options Research, states that the 
Beneficiary's "research is the foundation for [the Petitioner's] new bufness line, al I 
trading style combining human intelligence and machine intelligence." I asserts that this 
"system is able to provide way more efficient and higher-quality pricing" for the Petitioner and its 
clients, but did not explain how the Beneficiary's work has had a meaningful impact to the academic 
field beyond the Petitioner or has otherwise been recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
financial industry. 
The Petitioner asserts that the aforementioned letters of support show that the Beneficiary's work "has 
garnered sustained international recognition as outstanding" and "has been widely adopted by the 
field." The expert testimonials offered by the Petitioner, however, do not contain sufficient 
I states that he previously served as a postdoctoral fellow at thel~---~luniversiryl'-------' 
I. 
5 
I 
information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show 
that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the overall academic field, rather than by a solicited few, as 
substantially influential or otherwise indicative of international recognition. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary has authored four journal papers and at least five conference 
presentations since 2010. 12 The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Beneficiary's "history of 
publication is indicative of international recognition." As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent 
to the work of professors and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the 
Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has 
had on the field and whether his articles demonstrate that he is internationally recognized as 
outstanding in the academic field. 13 In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the 
P ff b . d J 2020 . f f G 1 S h 1 . d. f h th B f . e 1 10ner su m1tte anuary m ormat10n rom OOQ: e c o ar m 1ca m2: t at e ene 1ciarv s 
three hi2:hest cited articles, entitled l 
lc2013), I 
I (2012) and I 
I' (2015) each received 34, 17, and 10 
citations, respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual 
articles were self-citations by the Beneficiary or his coauthors. 
Furthermore, the record does not include comparative statistics indicating how often others in the 
Beneficiary's field are cited, nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that the number of citations 
received by his publications and presentations represents interest at a level consistent with outstanding 
achievement in the academic field. While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and 
collectively, show that the field has taken some notice of his quantitative physics work, the Petitioner 
has not established that the number of citations received by his published and presented work is 
sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with being recognized internationally in 
his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
As documentation of published material in professional publications written by others about the 
Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner submitted examples of several articles that cited to his papers. The 
submitted articles are about the authors' own research and not the Beneficiary's work. See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). Regardless, a review of those articles does not show the significance of his 
research or demonstrate that it has widel im acted the field. 14 For instance the Petitioner rovided 
an article entitled 
_____________ __.in which the author, '----~--~r_efi_e_r_en_ce_s_t_h_e_B_e_n_e_fi_c_ia __ a_n~d 
ical Review B entitled ' ------'"'"'T'"-------~ .__ ____________________ __.' Whil '------~ cited to their finding 
12 Participation in conferences demonstrates that Beneficiary's research findings were shared with others in his field, but 
without documenting the impact of his presented research, such participation is not sufficient to demonstrate that his work 
is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 
13 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 20 (stating that an individual's authorship of articles should 
be evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
14 Alth@gh we discuss representative sample aiiicles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
11 la Professor of Physics atl !University, served as the Beneficiary's research supervisor during his 
graduate studies. 
6 
I 
that 
'---------------------~ 'his article does not highlight the Beneficiary's 
work as outstanding, nor does it distinguish the Beneficiary's paper from the 67 other referenced 
articles. 
Another article presented by the Petitioner, entitled 
I t also cites tol ~~an-d-th_e_B-en_e_f_ic-i-ary_'_s_p_a-pe_r_i_n_P_h_y_·s-ic-·a-l_R_e_v-ie~w 
B. However, this article does not differentiate their paper from the 48 other cited papers. The article 
mentions their a er amon five exam les of studies that have observed 1 I 
'-r------------.---------------'' With regard to .__ ________ __. 
......... --..-------.----' the article references their paper and two other papers as offering a 
"possibility for future experiments." Moreover, while the article concludes by acknowledging "useful 
conversations withl t' it does not indicate that the Beneficiary's work is outstanding or 
otherwise viewed as widely influential in the academic field. 16 
While the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled researcher, the Petitioner has not 
established that he stands apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based 
on international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of the Beneficiary's 
work in the field of quantitative analysis, including evidence of his published and presented research 
articles, citations to those articles by other researchers, his service as a peer reviewer, and the opinions 
of experts in the field, we conclude that this documentation does not sufficiently establish that he has 
been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the field. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although users has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude users from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after users approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the users service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center 
director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow 
that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
16 The record also includes a Fall 2013 a1iicle written by! I in Dimensions, a newsletter of the Depaitment of Physics 
and AsITor~y atl lunivcrsity. In this aniclc,I I discusses rnscarnh studies by othc, physicists 
involving I and also his and the Beneficiary's work on the subject. Unlike the other physicists 
mentioned b I in the body of the article, this article only identifies the Beneficiary in a footnote. Furthermore, 
the article does not constitute evidence of recognition beyond the Beneficiary's alma mater. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary 
criteria, and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A review of the totality of 
the evidence, however, does not establish that he is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8