dismissed EB-1B Case: Reproductive Biology

(b)(6)
. DatAUG 2 1 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
!NR.E: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
. !J;_~;J»,~p~~IIJ .i»fHom~IIilij!·S~¢1irlfi' 
U.S. Citizenship arid IIililligration Sei"Vices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 2052g..:.2090 
U.S. CitizellShip 
and IIIJllligration 
Services 
PEtiTION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEH.t\.LF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed pleas~. fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This isa non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of la'V nor es~ablish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAOirtcortectly 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 1~290B) 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.F;R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. · 
Ron Rosenbe.~_, 
Chief, Administrative· Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
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 di~missed. 
The petitioner is a teaching .hospital. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher 
or prOfessor putsuant to section Z03(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(i)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the benefi~i~ in the United States as a 
Research Assistant Professor on the research track. The director determined 
that th,e petit_ioner had 
not established th.~t the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for 
class'ification as an outstanding r~searcher or professor. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and evidence that wa:s already part of the record, For t.he reasons 
di_sc~~sed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner has not e~tablished th_at tbe 
b~nefici_~ enjoys international recognition as an outstanding researcher or professor. 
Specifically, when the AAO simply "counts" the evi<ience submitted, the petitioner has submitted 
qualifying evidence under two of the regulatory criteria as required, jqdging t.he worlc of others and 
scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the fmal merits 
determination, .however, much of the evidence that technically qualifies under thes.e criteria reflects 
routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not, as of the date of filing the petition, set the 
beneficiary apart in the academic COillll1unity through eminence and distinction based on 
international recognition , the pUrpose of the regulatory criteria._. 1 Employment-Based Immigrants, 
56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 
1991)). 
I. Law 
Section203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, · · 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or res.eatch in 
the academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States--
1 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below . 
(b)(6)
:Page 3 
. NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher educl:I.Hon to teach in the 
academic ar~a. 
(II) for a comparable position with a university or institution 
of higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(Ill) for a cotnparable position to conduct rese~ch in the l:J.Tea 
vvith 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. 
11. International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
resel:l.fcher must be ~ccompan.ied by "[ e]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petitionJi The regulation lists 
the following siX criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least 
two. 
(A) Documemation 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 
wbich require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) Published material in professiop_~ publicatious written by others about the 
alien's work in the academic fi~l<l. Such material shall include the title, date, and 
author of the ma~erial, and ~y necessary tr~sla~ion; 
(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 c_oritributions to 
the academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of .the ~ien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
joUtnals with international circulation) ill the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appe~s for the 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet two of the given evidentiary 
criteria. With respect to the criteria at 8 C;ER .. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that 
w}lile USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the signific~ce of the evidence submitted 
to meet t:hose two criteria, those concerns shoilld have been raised in a subseqQent ''fmal merits 
detennination.'' ld.. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested oil an improper UI)derstanding of the regulations.2 
mstead ofparsing the significance of evidence as part ofthe .initial inquiry, the CO@ stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (whiCh the AAO did)," and if tbe 
petitioner failed to submit sq,fficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of ¢vic1ence (as the AAO concluded).'' /d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)}. The court also explained the "fm_(JJ merits determination" as 
the <;:orollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner ha.s 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 yery top of the[ it] field of endeavor," 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and ''that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim ~d 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 intematioJ:W accl.aim" ~e eligible for an ''extraordinary 
ability'' visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). · 
14.. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first c.ounted and then 
considered in the context of a fmal merits detennination. 3 While involving a different classification 
than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the. two classifications makes the court's 
reaso11ing persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center 
decisions, t:he AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step an.alysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the _Kazarian court. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2<1 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), a.ff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
2 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.F..R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) and 8 C.F.K § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
3 the classification at issue in Kazatiail, section 203(b )( 1 )(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 uncier only two criteria. 
(b)(6)
NON-PReCEDENT DECISION 
Page5 
m. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Th.is petition, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a researcher who i~ recognized intemationall y as 
oUtstanding in the academic (ield of reproductive biology. The petitioner initially asserted that the 
beneficiary meets "at lea.st two and as many as five of the six relevant criteria.;' The director 
determined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence under two of the criteria. For the 
rea.soiJ,s discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitiOJ1er has submitted 
qu~ifyin.g evidence under two of the criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achieve~ent 
.zn the academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was the recipient of the at 
· The director concluded tha~ the -
petitioner had not demonstrated tbat tbe beneficiary's 1 qualifies as a major award. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not contest this ftnditlg. Therefore, the 
AAO considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roa.rk, 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 AAO). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence tbat meets the plain 
langUage requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
I 
Documentation of the ali(!n 's membership in associations in the academic field which 
require outstanding achieverne_nts of t.heir members 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the benefici(lfy is a lllember of _ . The direCtor 
concluded that the petitioner had not established that membership in this particular organization 
requires outstanding achievements for its members. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest this 
finding. therefore, the AAO considers this issue to be abandoned. 1d. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
Published ma.teri.al 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 that the beiJ,eficiary' s work has been cited, and submitted several 
examples of media coverage. The director concluded the evidence submitted do~s not establish the 
beneficiary's elig}blity for the criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest this finding~ 
Therefore, the AAO considers this issue to be abandoned. /d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
ln light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
Evidence . of the alien's participation, either indivi4u,aUy or on a panel, as the judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied academic field · 
The petitioner subrn_itted evidence that the beneficiary co-chaired a platform presentation at the 
· The petitioner also submitted 
evidence that the beneficiary participated in the l for 
· - - ·· during which het duties included "proof-reading the 
l!bstr~cts submitted by the presenters.'' This evidence qualifies under the plain language of the 
criterion set forth ~t 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(b). Pursuant to the .reasoning in Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the n~.t1Jfe of these duties ~ay and will be considered below in our 
fmal merits determination. · 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific ot scholarly teseatch contributions to the academic 
field 
AS evidence relating to the beneficiary's otiginaJ s~ientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted letters of support from. peers lilld colleagues attesting to the 
beneficiary's research contributions. 
Th~ plajn language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not requite that the 
bert_eficiary's cont:ributioQS themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That being 
said, the plain 'language of the regulation does not simply reqqire original research, but an original 
•:•research contribution." Had the regUlation contemplated merely the submission of original 
research, it would have said so, and not have included the extra word "contribution." Moreover, the 
pl~in bmguage of the regulation requires that the contribution be "to the academic field." Thus, the 
petitioner must establish th.at the beneficiary's research has made contributions to the academic field 
of t¢p;rodu,ctive biology. 
The ·petitioner submitted an initial letter from 
_ at the petitioning bospital, lilld the . beneficiary's 
supervisor. In his letter, asserts that the beneficiary "has ma(ie significant contributions 
to the field of reproductive biology" and that ber · research "is considered one of the most 
important and relevant developments in contraceptive research of the deGade.'' 
describes the beneficiary's work on developing 
non-steroidal·male contraceptive agent, which he asserts ·is "in preparation stages for filing with 
the :Food lilld Drug Administration (FDA).'' states: "The development of H2-
gamendazole as the most potent male contraceptive agent to date resulted in the identification of 
novel protein targets for drug discovery of novel male contraceptive agents.'' also 
describes the beneficiary's research focus on whether reproductive potential is affected by space 
flight. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page? 
However, assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and achievements are 
stated in a conclusory manner. does not specifica_lly explain how the beneficiary's 
work is being applied in the field. statement that "[t]he development of H2-
ga.roep.dazole as the most potent male contraceptive agent to date res.ulted in the identification of 
novel· protein t~gets for drug discovery of novel male contraceptiVe agents" falls short of 
explaining what significance and impact the beneficiary's research has made in the academic 
field. In particular, is not clear how the beneficiary's d~velopmeQt of a component that could 
potentially be used J.n a future male contraceptive drug that is still in the preparation stages of 
fili.ng with the FDA constitutes a contribution to the academic field of reproductive biology. 
Speculation a._s to potential future contributions cannotestablish that the beneficiary has aJteady 
contributed to the a._cademic field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from --~- -- --- - ~ _ - -.-~.-, 
curriculum vitae indicates that he has spent over 
35 yeats with in the field· of space biology and biomedicine. describes the 
beneficiary's research on how space flight alters the reproductive physiology of animals, and 
asserts that her research "will be especially important in assuring that the risk of reproductive 
potential of young astronauts is determined and that risk mitigation strategies ate developed, 
also 9esqibes how the beneficiary's research "may potentially be extrapolated from 
space.,flight to biomedical problems here oQ. Earth, e.g; multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy 
and osteoporosis" and "should open new avenues of I~~ear~b leading to new therapies for bone 
and muscle wasting diseases." concludes that the beneficiary's "work ethic, her 
enthusiasm, and her creativity mark het as a person Who will be a valuable member of the U.S. 
scientific community as we strive to maintain world leadership in the field of space biology and 
biomedical research," However, while letter describes the beneficiary's Wotk he 
doe.s not explain how her work is being applied in the academic field of reproductive biolo_gy. 
The petitioner submitted an initial letter from 
, at the 
atteSts that he is a new-oscientist specializing in 
electrophysiology. attests that he interacted with the beneficiary on three past space 
shuttle missions in his capacity as 
ofthe Russian Space Agency. attests that the beneficiary's "groundbteaking" findings 
aboqt the effects of space flight on reproductive physiology in female mice "raised huge 
awareness and scientific curiosity among space scientists around 
the country and the world.;' Dr. 
_ further attests that the beneficiary's findings are "of critical import~ce aiJ,d brought 
awareness to a potential serious risk to astronautS, particularly in terms of understanding the 
i:nflJJence of lo11g-term habitation on the International Space Station for young astronauts and in 
the planning of even lengthier missions to Mars or else~here." : further attests that the 
beneficiary's res.eatch on 
developing non-honnonal male contraceptives ''demoustrates her 
expertise in the field of reproductive biology'' and that het research is in its pte-investigational 
new drug (pre-IN_D) stages and close to FDA approval for pre-clinical trials." 
(b)(6)
\ 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
concludes that the beneficiary has and will continue to make significailt contributions "in the 
fi~ld of space biology as well as development of safe and effective contraception fot the U.S. 
public." 
Similar to . · letter does not adeqt1ately expla,in how the , 
beneficiary's work has contributed to the. academic field of reproductive biology. Foremost, the 
MO questions whether can · be considered an expert iii the field of reproductive 
biology, as he is a petgosci~ntist specializing in electrophysiology. Second, does not 
explain how the beneficiary's research in non-hormonal male contraceptives has contributed to 
the field of reproductive biology. _ states that the beneficiary's research is in the 
investigational drug (pre-IND) stages and has not yet ·obtained FDA approval for pre-clinical 
tri.als; he does not explain how the benefiCiary's research fmdings ate already being applied in the­
field. It is u.nclear how an ''investigational drug'' that has not yet obtained FDA approval for pte­
di~ical trials constitt1tes a contribtlti()n to tl,le. a,cademic field of reproductive biology: Again, 
speculation as to potential future contributions cannot establish that the beneficiary has already . 
contributed to the academiC field as a whole. -
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
states that he -;,-
became acquainted with the beneficiary throt1gb. a frienci who is working as an assistant professor at 
the petitioning hospital. attests that his laboratory "h.a,s b~en c:tt the forefront of 
research in mammalian gametogenesis aild germ cell development," and in particular, "on the 
geneti~ regulation of these events at [a] molecular leveL'"' attests that the beneficiary . 
has been "instrum~ntal in conducting several critical studies in various animal models and was able 
to demonstrate successfully that H2-Gamendazole ..• is 8, prom.ismg ca,nciidate for development of 
non-hormonal male 
contraceptive." attests that the beneficiary's research is in the pre­
IND stage, and asserts that this is a "landmark achievement" that will be "a significant addition 
to the ex_isUng contraceptive choices.'' further attests that the betieficiaty' s research 
involving the effect of space flight on reproductive physiology "created a huge stir in [the] space 
te.search community , .. [Cll1d] hl!s become ])ighly important for the welfare of reproductive 
hel:!lJ:b. of :::t_stronauts." concludes that the beneficiary's research contributions ''have 
had an intemc:ttional impact in the fields of Reproductive biology and have .significantly sped up 
the progress of contraceptive development.'' 
letter doe~ not adequately explain how the beneficiary's work has contributed to 
the academic field of reproductive biology. Other than making conclusory assertions regarding 
how the beneficiary's research in- this ~:~.rec:t wiU be a "signi_ficant addition" and a ''promising 
caildidate," does not ~xplain how the beneficiary's research findings are actllally 
being applied in 
the field. Again, speculation as to potential future contributions caililot establish 
that the beneficiary hlls already contributed to the academic field as a whole. With regards to the 
beneficiary's research involving the effect of space flight on reproductive physiology, Dr. 
4 It is not clear whether the field of reproductive biology is the same as mammalian gatnetogell.~sis and 
geriil cell development. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
assertion that this "created a: huge stir in [the] ~p'l,ce re~earch conummity" indicates 
that the beneficiary's research has impacted the space research community, but does not explain 
h.ow he_r research has contributed to the field of reproductive biology. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from _·--=====...;. _..-.======= 
attests that she is the - - -
, "co-PI [co-principal investigator] of the project with which [the benefici~] is associated," in 
· particular, the beneficiary's research project involving developing m:..Gamendazole as a reversible, 
ora:l .• non-bormona:l male contraceptive. asserts that the beneficiary has made 
','outstandiilg contributions" to this project and has played a ''critical role" in determining the 
efficacy of H2-GMZ, a dn!g candidate t:h.a.t induces reversible infertility in various animal models. 
goes on to state that ."the development of an eff~tive contraceptive without any 
undesirable side effects is a very important contribution toward expanding the contraceptive choices 
available today." _ asserts that the beneficiary's Various presentations, travel awards, and 
invitations to review and chair sessions, ~'[show] that [the beneficiary] has achieved remarkable 
heights in the field of reproductive biology." . 
However, fails to explain how the beneficiary's research has already contributed to 
the .field of reproductive biology. The AAO emphasizes that Gharacterization of 
H2-GMZ as "a drug candidate'' and her assertions that she and the beneficiary a:te working towards 
"tlle development . . . [of] a very important contribution" are; stated in terms of a potential futUre 
contribution, but do not explain how the research is actually being applied in the field. As stated 
above, speculation as. to potential future contributions cannot establish that the beneficiary has 
already contributed io the academic field as a whole. Furthermore, assertions 
regarding the beneficiary's contributions and achievements are stated in a condusory manner. 
Finally, attests that she is the co-PI of the particular H2-GMZ project of which the 
beQ.efi~iai-y ''is ~ssociated'' and discusses the beneficiary's ''outstanding contributions'' to this 
project, Her letter fails to ~pecifically identify the beneficiary's exact role in the project, but it 
implies that the beneficiary is not one of tbe primary hwestigators of the research. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Associate Professor m the 
Department of HiStOlogy and Embryology, Faculty of Mc;xlicine, 
_ asserts. that the beneficiary "has already made important scientific contributions to the 
field of male contraceptive development by developirig a non-hormonal otal contraceptive 
compound which is fast moving towards pre-IND status." also asserts that the 
b¢neficil:lJY is involved in "path-breaking research with where she is trying to study the 
effect of space-flight on reproductive health." states that the benefiCiary's findings 
iJ1 tbis area ''may ::tlso be extrapolated to the natural process of aging'' and ''will ensure that the 
mission to find cutes for aging related complications can move forward and be accomplished in a 
timely Jilaimet." 
With ;respect to the beneficiary's research on male contraceptive compounds, fails to 
explain how the beneficiary's research has already contributed to the field of reproductive 
biology. Notably, characterizes the beneficiary's teseatch as "fast moving towards 
(b)(6)
( 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page ~0 
pre-lND status," which is inconsistent with other claims tha~ the beneficiary's research "is in the 
pre-IND stage." With respect to the beneficiary's . research on the effect of space-flight on 
reproductive health, statements indicate 
that the beneficiary's research will 
contribute to academic field related to aging and aging related complications, not speCifically to the 
academic field of reproductive health. 
lp response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted additional letters. The petitioner submitted a 
second letter from describing in more detail the beneficiary's research findings and 
their impact on the space 
research community. _ describes the beneficiary's research as 
providing "direct and critic~l basic science understanding on life in space and establishes the 
basis for applied protocols to maintain crew health and performance.'' However, fails 
to explain how the beneficiary's research fmdiQ.gs ::ge actually being applied in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
describes her collaborations with the 
beneficiary, and lists some of the beneficiary.:s pres~nUition_s, asserts that "[a]s a 
result of these presentations, [the beh.eficiary] is well-recogniz~d iQ. the international 
community." further asserts that the beneficiary's research 
on male contraception 
"will ha:ve a profolJ1ld impact on healthcare, specifically for controlling fertility using an 
innovative and reversible method of male contraception that has been developed only by her and 
.· her research team:·· concludes that the l:>eneficiary has ''unique'' and "unequaled" 
experience and knowledge in male contraceptive development and that her "significant original 
contributions are well-recognized by the intetilatiortal scientific community in our field." 
However, other than making conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's research 
contributions, does not explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research 
fmdings are actually being applied in the field. 
the petitioner submitted a second letter from , in which he emphasizes the originality of 
the beneficiary's research. With respect to the beneficiary's research on the effect of space travel 
on fertility, emphasizes that the beneficiary "is the only scientist in the history of space 
travel research, here in the United States or to our knowledge anywhere in the world, who has 
conducted such research.'' With respect to the beneficiary's research on male contraception, Dr. 
characterizes this research as "one of the most important and relevant developments in the 
field in the decade" and emphasizes the novelty of her research. However, while the AAO does 
not question the originality of the beneficiary's research, the regulation does not simply require 
original research, but an original "research contribution.'' . fails to explain With specificity 
how the beneficiary's research fmdings are actually being applied in the field. 
The Board of lromigration 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 (BlA 
2000) (citing cases). The Boatd
1
also held, howev~r: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. If 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
p~titioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The op~ions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
United States Citizenship & Immigration ~ervices (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron ITJ,ternational, 
19 I&N Pee, 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding ilil alien's eligibility for the benefit sought: /d. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility ; USCIS 
may , as the AAO has done above, evalu.ate the coq~en~ of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. ·at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(llOtiAg that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact") . . USCIS may 
even 
give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. ld. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Cortun'r. 1998) (citing Matter of ·Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'L 
Comril'r. 1972)). 
Overall, the letters submitted by the petitioner primarily contain conclusory assertions of 
· il}temational recognition and contributions, without specifically identifying the contributions and 
providing specific examples of how the beneficiary's research is being applied in the . field. 
Some of the letters are written by experts outside of the field of reproductive biology, and attest 
to the impact of the beneficiary's research in the field of space biology rather than reproductive 
biology. Moreover,- several reference letters are from the beneficiary's immediate circle of 
colleagues or collaborators. Considering the above, the letters alone are insufficient to establish 
that the beneficiary's research can be considered a contribution to the field of reproductive 
biology. 
USCIS need not accept primarily copdusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of 
the United States, 745 F. Stipp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990); Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972) (going on record without supporting docurt1e11t~y evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings). Similarly, merely repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), .aff'd, 905 F, 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
In light ofthe above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.ER. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page I~ 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly boo~ or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored at least four journal pijblications 
in the academic field. Th\ls, the petitioner has submitted evidence that . qualifies under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has subnritted evidence that meets two of the criteria that must 
be ~atisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically the 
petitioner S\lbi!litted evidence to meet the .criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). 
The next step, J:mwever, is-a fmal merits determination that considers whether the evidep.<:;e is 
consistent with the statutory standard in this matter, international recognition as outstanding. 
Sect~on 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act 
B. Fi114l 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 Sl1bmitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to 
some extent indicative of international recognition. More specifically, outstai1ding professors and 
Je$el:!l'chers should stand apart in the academic coiillilunity through eminence and distinction 
based on iotemational recognition. The regulation . at issue provides criteri<1 to be used in 
evaluating whether a professor or researcher is d~med 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 e~pe:rie11ce is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyoml her own circle of collaborators. 
See Ka~arian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the petitioner highlights the fact that the beneficiary served 
as co.,chai.r for the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for the Stt1dY of Reprocil1ction in 2010. 
Wl}ile notable. the record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's judging experience is 
. in<i.icative of or consistent with international recognition beyond her iiillilediate circle of 
collaborators. In particular, with reference to the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study 
of Reproduction, the AAO observes that the beneficiary was invited to serve .as co:-chair by Dr. 
Zelinski, whom had known the beneficiary since 4.009 when she began discussions to conduct 
studies with Dr. Tash. In her letter, Dr. Zelinski state~ that she invited the beneficiary because she 
was "aware•! of tl1e beneficiary's "investigative excellence and importai1t contributions to the field 
of andrology," but Dr. Zelinski did not specify what qualifications were needed in o:rder to serve as 
a co-chair for this particular event. 5 
The AAO cannot ignore that scientific journals and conference submissions are peer reviewed 
and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles and participate in the conferences in 
5 The Schedule of Events for the 43ro Annual Meeting of the Society for the St\Jdy of Reproduction refl~cts 
tha.t there were approximately 50 different chairs and co-chairs for the entire event. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
various ways. Thus, the a.c:t of serving as a reviewer is somewhat routine in the field; not every 
reviewer enjoys internationaJ recognition. While serving as a co-chair is less routine than 
serving as a peer reviewer, Without evid~nce that sets. the ben~f'iciary apart from others in her 
field such as evidence that she co,-chaired for a conference that credits a small, elite group of 
revi~wers and judges, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's judging experience is 
indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition. 
ihe petitioner also emphasizes the.,beneficia.ry assist~ ii} th.e 
-The petitioner· submitted a letter from the. 
Cow_wil of Medical Research attesting that the benefiCiary Was a volunteer a.nd assisted in 
orga,ni~ing tlte conference. The letter listed the benefiCiary's duties as including "proof-reading the 
.abstracts S\lbmi~ed by presenters, managing distribution of meeting material to the participants and 
help in various other scientific activities and social activities pertaining to the meeting" as well as 
serving on the welcome committee. However, this hitter does not indicate what qualifications were 
needed for vohmteets like the benefici_a.ry to serve.. Further, the nature of . the duties that the 
beneficiary 
perfofined, such as helping in organization, rnanagip.g distribution of meeting materials, 
. and helping in· social activities, ate not indicative of a. process in which vohll1teer positi~ns are 
prestigious or highly selective. ·· 
Th~ beneficiary'$ cit11tiort history is another relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition. /d. The evidence indicates that the 
beneficiary's work had been cited approximately twelv~ tinles at the ti.rp.e the instant petition was · 
filed and approximately 20 times as of the date of the petitioner's RFE response . .Based on the 
nll.IDl:>er of citations alone, the record does not reflect that the beneficiary has been widely cited. 
Again, the petitioner a.sserts that much of the beneficiary's work is ''proprietary and confidential in 
nature and therefore not av11.ilable for researchers," but the petitioner failed to provide any evidence 
to support this assertion. Going on record wiJ]Iout $\lpporting documentary .evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary has pu.blished four important articles and made at 
least sixteen professional presentations. However, the petitioner ha.s failed to explain and document 
how the beneficiary's publication and presentation history sets her apart frorn others in the 
researcher's field. While the petitioner characterizes the beneficiary's publication history as 
''productive," the petitioner fails to provide any factual basis to support this characterization. Here, 
it is important to note the beneficiary's educational and professional history during the time of her 
published a.rticles and presentations. In particular, the beneficiary received her Ph.D. from the 
in 2005 .. She was a 
from February 
2006 to 
June 2011, and began her current position there as a Research Assistant Professor on July 1, 
2011. Generally, Ph.D. candidates, postdoctoral fellows and Research Assistants are expected to 
(b)(6)
·, 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 \. 
perform research ap.d publish their work.6 In particular, the AAO observes that the beneficiary's job 
duties as a Research Assistant Professor on the research track specifically require her to publish in 
jolitilals 
and present at scientific meetings. The petitioner's job offer letter to the beneficiary states: 
Description of Research/Scholarship Activities: . As a member of a faculty on the 
research track you will be involved priinarily in, research. you will be expected to 
cont_inue to develop your research program in collaboration with In 
addition, yo\1 will be expected to · pursue independent external funding as Pl. 
Success ·bl this program will be jtJdged by the number and quality of 
publications, pteseilta:tions at appropriate scientific P~eetings, and · securing 
external grant funds. (Emphasis added.) · · 
Thus, the benefi.ci:ary's published research and presentations, whether arising from her position as a 
Ph.D. candidate or her current position~ a Research Assistant Professor, do not set her apart from 
other similarly SitUated researchers in the field. The petitiom~r has not provided any explanation or 
documentation to establish that the beneficiary's publication and presentation record is (),typical and 
much more prolific than that of other researchers. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's publication record would be higher eX:C(ept that 
and/or her research is i1). a ''proprietary area of study'' that precludes such publications. However, 
the petitioner has not submitted any evidence to support such claims. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not su,fficient forp1JfPoses of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings . /d. 
The petitioner has also provided Thomson Reuters Jotmial Citation Reports for journals that have 
p{Jblished tlie beneficiary's work, listing the impact factor of those journals. The Journal Impact 
Factor from the Joll,fllm Citation Report is a product of Thomson lSI (Institute for Scientific 
Information). The Joumal Citation Report provides qQap.titative tools for evaluating journals. The 
impact factor is one of these; it is a meast.Ire of the frequen.cy with which the ''aven~.ge article'' in a 
jotirnal has been Cited in a given period oftime. See www.thomsonreuters.com. 
The petitioner further submits as evidence to establish the impact of · the ;beneficiary ' s work, 
6 See The, >Office of Postdoctoral Affairs Handbook, available online 
at: I (accessed July 26, 2013) describing 
the university's expectation of a postdoctoral scholar to participate in a regimen of advanced training and 
research, and to train under the supervision and direction of a faculty research mentor Who Will provide 
the opportunity for collaborative and independent research, as well as promote publication of findings and 
preparation of research grants as determined by a rtmtua.l agreement betw~en the postdoctoral sqholar and 
the mentor. See also the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, available online at: 
www.bls.gov/oco (accessed July 26; 2013) States that postsecondary faculty members are pressured to 
perfqrm research and publish their work and that the' professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
_) 
Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Medicine, which includes several journals that have published the 
beneficiary's work. 
Co~el asserts that the Citation Index Impact Factors and rank of the joumals th~t h~ve published 
the benefici~' ~ work sufficiently establlsh their impact. The impact factor or tank of a given 
jotnnal is not persuasive evidence of the impact of every article published in that journal. More 
persuasive is how the beneficiary's work w~ received upon publication. 
Even if we accepted these docunients as evidence of the prestige of the highlighted journals, they 
would not 
evidence the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion, The record does not include a 
copy of the citing articles to show that the articles substantively discuss the beneficiary's work, 
xat:h~r t:han merely citing it as one among many other authorities. , 
On appeal, counsel emphasizes tl:u~ mjgmality of the benefiCiary's research, and implies that original 
research, alone, should constitute evidence of the beneficiary's contributions to the academic field. 
On appeal, counsel States: "We do not agree that the phrase 'con.,t:ri,butions to the Academic field' 
implies a 'higher standard' than original non-replicative research." However, counsel's as~ertion is 
un~J;'suasjve and unsupported by any citations to legal authority. Demonstrating that the 
beneficiary's work is "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 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be 
unlikely to secure the beneficiary a Ph.D., let alone classification as an outsWI<Ii.ng researcher. To 
argue mat all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond 
arty useful mea.I.li.ng, and to presume that most research is ;'tinoriginal. '' 
CoililSel repeatedly ~serts t:h.~t the beneficiary is "leading" the resear.ch on female fertility in 
space travel and in the developmen.,t of H2-Gamendazole as a reversible male contraceptive. 
However, the evidence in the record suggests otherwise. The news and media articles the 
petitioner submitted specifically identify as the le~ding researcher, not the beneficiary. 
For example, a press release published on the website 1 • 
' and fails to identify the 
beneficiary in any way. Similarly, the article in the 
as the 
recipien.,t of the grant and the researcher who is ''leading" the study. It is important to note the 
petitioner's job offer letter to the beneficiary speCifically states that the beneficiary is "expected 
to continue to Q.evelop your research program in collaboration with In addition, 
letter attests that s.he is the "co-PI of the project with which [the beneficiary] is 
associated," suggesting that the beneficiary is not ooe of the primary invest~gators leading the 
research. therefore, the record is unclear as to what the beneficiary's actual role is with respect 
to the research she is conducting. The beneficiary's actual role in the research is an important 
factor in considering whether the beneficiary has acquired international recognition as ali 
outstanding researcher. The record lacks evidence that a significant oumber of members of the 
academic field outside of the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues ate even _aware of her 
work, · 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
In. light of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the ben~fici~'s qualifying evidence 
does not set t;he beneficiary apart in the academic corfirtiunity through eminence ~d distinction 
based op international recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. 
JV. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researther who has won the respect of her 
peers and collaborators, while . securillg some degree of exposure for her work. The record, 
however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary · to th~ levd of an alien who is internationally 
recognized a5 an outstanding researcher ot professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not e~tablished 
that the berieficjary is qualified for the benefit sought, and the petition will be denied. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the al>ove stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the iffi111igr'ation benefit sought. Se.ction 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otielute, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORllEll: The appeal is dismissed.