dismissed EB-1B Case: Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
I U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
~~LPC Copy 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 0 3 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 5 1153@)(1)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ecided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1 18 Robert P. Wiernann. Director 
'\ ' Administrative ~~~eals Office 
1 Y 
Li 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a research institute. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Imrmgration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(B). According to 
the petition, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a research fellow. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had offered the beneficiary a permanent 
job as of the date of filing. On appeal, the petitioner submits a new job offer. We uphold the director's decision 
and further find that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as 
outstanding in her academic field, as required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
( for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons kll-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 hll-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for a term 
of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily have an 
expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the t the position of research fellow was permanent. The 
petitioner submitted a letter fro stating that the beneficiary "conducts original research as 
a full time permanent Postdoctoral Fellow in my laboratory." This document does not constitute a job offer 
fiom the petitioner to the beneficiary. On November 14,2002, the director requested-"a copy of the letter' from 
[the petitioner] to the tmefhq offering her a permanent research position in her academic field." (Emphasis 
in original .) i, 
In response, the petitioner submitt om -andm 
-department, asserting tha ill continue to work for the petitioner - 
future, including providing for a position for [the beneficiary] in his program." The letter further states that the 
petitioner "does not provide or Lured appointments for ~mployees, which are on year to year 
renewable contracts. The letter concludes that it is "contrary to [the petitioner's] policy to indicate in any letter 
describing an employee that their position is 'per~nanent.'~' The petitioner also submitted its reappointment 
letters dated November 15, 200 1 and November 15, 2002 addressed to the beneficiary. These letters state that 
all "appointments are for one year or less, and may be renewed at the discretion of the institution upon 
continued evidence of satisfactory performance." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not met the regulatory evidentiary requirement of submitting a 
letter offering the beneficiary a position for a term of indefinite or unlimited duration. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that although the beneficiary's position is renewable every year, "she has 
always had the expectation of continued employment unless there is a good cause for termination." The 
petitioner further asserts that the permanent nature of the beneficiary's position is evident from the regular 
renewals of her contract. The ~etiioner notes that the beneficiarv is "now included in our staff-level nosition of 
Research Associate." The petitioner submits a May 22, 2003 letter to the beneficiary fro 
Chairman for the pititimer, offering the benefi 
Associate. The letter defines the position as "a permanent research position" i 
the letter indicates that the beneficiary's performance will be reviewed annually and that continued employment 
is "continent upon continued evidence of satisfactory performance during these reviews and availability of 
continued research funding," it does not indicate that the contract is subject to renewal at the discretion of the 
petitioner. 
While the new letter appears to offer the beneficiary a more permanent position as defined in the regulations, it 
is dated well after the petition's date of filing. Thus, it is not evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility as of that 
date. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comrn. 1971). Therefore, we 
cannot consider this letter. 
We concur with the director that the prior offers were not permanent as defined in the regulations quoted 
above. While the beneficiary may have had an expectation of continued employment, the use of the word 
"and" in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204(i)(2) indicates that such an expectation is required in addition to an 
offer for a job with a term of indefinite or unlimited duration. The prior job offers are unambiguously for a 
one-year term subject to renewal at the discretion of the petitioner. Thus, the job offer was not for a position 
with a term of indefinite or unlimited duration. The lack of a permanent job offer from the petitioner to the 
beneficiary is sufficient grounds for denial. 
Beyond the decision of the director,' the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an 
outstanding professor or researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is 
recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the beneficiary must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling 
purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these 
criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 
beneficiary has satisfied the following  riter ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the 
academic field 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's full scholarship for her postgraduate studies, based on her 
performance on her baccalaureate degree examination; her performance on a national entrance examination; her 
Ph.D. and her postdoctoral research fellowship all serve to meet this criterion. These assertions are 
unpersuasive as none of these accomplishments constitute a prize or an award and are certainly not "major" or 
in recognition of an achievement in the academicfzeld. 
Scholarships are generally based on past academic achevement, not for accomplishments in a field of endeavor. 
While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3)(A) references outstanding achievements in one's academic field, 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for 
study." The definition does not include typical bases for scholarships, such as grade point average, class 
standing or examination results. It remains, academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. 
1 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technic$'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), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
2 
This decision will only discuss those criteria that the petitioner has claimed the beneficiary meets or for 
which evidence was submitted. 
Rather, academic study is training for a future career in an academic field. As such, scholarships in recognition 
of academic achievement, including examination results, are insufficient. Scholarships are simply not evidence 
of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high academic achievements in comparison with 
fellow students. 
In addition, a doctoral degree, while requiring the completion of orignal work demonstrated by a dissertation, is 
the expected outcome upon the completion of coursework and the dissertation. It is not a major award or prize 
and it is not indicative of international recognition. 
Finally, a postdoctoral fellowship or "associateship," even if competitive, is not an award or prize in recognition 
for an achievement in a field. It is a training subsidy based on academic achievements. This conclusion is 
consistent with the materials from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) submitted by the 
petitioner. These materials state that CSIR Research Fellowships and Associateships are designed for "bright 
young men and women for training in methods of research under the expert guidance of faculty members / 
scientists working in University Departments 1 National Laboratories and Institutes in various fields of Science 
& Technology and Medical Sciences." The materials further state that the selection for research associateships 
is conducted "through [an] assessment of academic achievements of candidates and interviews of those screened 
by high level disciplinewise." Thus, the associateshp is not an award or prize for achievements in the 
beneficiary's academic field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary has received a prize or award for 
achievements in the field, much less a major prize or award. Thus, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership- in associations in the academic jield which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner submitted notification of the beneficiary's associate membership in the American Society for 
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) upon receipt of her dues papent, her "registration" with the 
American Society for Matrix Biology (ASMB) requesting the payment of membership dues and her listing in 
the FASEB membership directory. The petitioner submitted information about these societies and the3 
publications. The materials reveal that FASEB is a coalition of independent member societies. The petitioner 
did not indicate which member society the beneficiary joined or the membership requirements of that society. 
While the petitioner submitted materials regarding ISMB membership, the petitioner submitted no evidence that 
the beneficiary is a member of ISMB. Regardless, the materials indicate that an application form must be 
submitted with signatures from two ISMB members. They further indicate that the "officers are happy to 
sponsor applications." In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserted that 
the beneficiary "needed the recommendation of other members to become a member in" ASBMB and ASMB. 
This office consistently finds that obtaining a recommendation from a current member is not an outstanding 
achievement. The record does not reflect that these organizations require outstanding achievements of their 
general membership. Moreover, the beneficiary is only an associate member of ASBMB. 
Published material in profesional 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 asserts that the citations of the beneficiary's articles meet this criterion. Initially, the petitioner 
submitted two articles that cite the beneficiary's 1994 article. The petitioner also submitted the results of a 
search at www.ohiolink.edu resulting in four records, all articles authored by the beneficiary. The relevance of 
this document to . The petitioner also submitted materials from another Internet site 
regarding articles b the author of a review article that cites the beneficiary's work. The 
relevance of these m 's recognition in the field is not explained. 
In the director's request for additional evidence, he noted that mere reference to the beneficiary's work in a 
footnote was insufficient to meet this criterion. In response, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's 
contributions to her field "are highly regarded by the scientific community as judged by citations in articles 
published by others." The petitioner also submitted evidence that a 2001 article by the beneficiary had been 
cited 23 times and copies of some of those articles. Of the 23 articles, all but one were published after the date 
of filing, March 2002, and eight are self-citations by coauthors and collaborators. 
The post-filing citations are not evidence of the beneficiary's recognition as of the date of filing and cannot be 
considered. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
Regardless, articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the 
beneficiary. Even the review articles cite the beneficiary's work as one of a number of recent studies in the area 
under review. Thus, they are also not primarily about the beneficiary's work and cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. 
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 academicJield 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that Attachment 6 included evidence to meet ths criterion. As noted by the 
director in his request for additional evidence, that attachment d~d not include evidence relevant to this criterion. 
In response, the petitioner no longer asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion. We find no evidence 
relating to it in the record. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic or scholarly research contributions to the academic3eId. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
Research work that is unorignal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's degree, let alone 
classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reason that the 
beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. 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." 
The petitioner submitted ten reference letters, all fiom the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues. We will 
consider the content of these letters below. At the outset, however, we note that letters from the beneficiary's 
immediate circle of colleagues cannot, by themselves, establish the beneficiary's international recognition 
beyond those with whom she has worked. We note that ''international recognition" is not acquired simply by 
Page 7 
working in different countries and, thus, having collaborators willing to provide reference letters originating 
from more than one country. Such letters are more persuasive when supported by letters from independent 
experts in the field who were aware of the-beneficiary's contributions prior to being contacted for a reference 
letter and objective evidence of the beneficiary's influence in the field internationally. 
The beneficiary received her Ph.D. from Calcutta University in 1996 and in 1997 began working as a guest 
scientist at Heinrich Heine Unhersity in Duesseldorf, Germany. Subsequently, the beneficiary accepted a 
postdoctoral fellowship at the petitioning institution. 
- 
the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor, discusses the beneficiary's academic achievements and states: 
[The beneficiary] isolated, characterized and purified fatty acid binding protein (FABP) from 
human fetal brain. FABPs belong to a family of low-molecular weight (14-15 kDa) non- 
enzymic, cytosolic proteins which are involved in the uptake, transport and intracelldar 
trafficlung of fatty acids and acyl-CcA esters. [The beneficiary] showed that FABP play a vital 
role in [the] brain by regulating fat synthesizing enzymes either by directly enhancing the 
delivery of substrates in their usable form, targeting substrates to particular metabolic fates or 
eliminating - inhibitory effects of long acid fatty acids and CoA esters. 
Professo- fails to explain the significance of the field to a degree 
indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition. fellow graduate 
student at the University of Calcutta and postdoctoral notes the prestigious 
institutions where the beneficiary has studied and worked, but failsto explain how her work has impacted the 
field. 
the beneficiary's supervisor at Heinrich Heine University, asserts that the beneficiary tested the 
effects of palladium from car exhaust systems on brain slices in vitro. The beneficiary "found some typical and 
irreversible depressant effects, at concentrations much above those possibly occurring in exposed people." The 
beneficiary also performed electrophysiological testing on brain slices of the amino acid taurine, which is 
involved in the maintenance of osmolarity. Professor Haas asserts that the beneficiary has "submitted" 
manuscripts reporting these studies. He concludes that the beneficiary "has thus made significant contributions 
to the understanding of physiological and pathophysiological hctions with clear relevance to environmentar 
questions and disease states such as brain edema and hepatic encephalopathy." He does not explain how results 
that have yet to be subject to peer review and disseminated to the field can be considered contributions of major 
significance such that they have garnered the beneficiary international recognition. 
, the beneficiary's supervisor at the petitioning institution, discusses the beneficiary's work with 
hyaluronan, the principle structural unit of a matrix necessary for ovulation and fertilization. Specifically, the 
beneficiary focused on two protein molecules known to cause infertility in mice when defective. The 
beneficiary "identified a novel mechanism in which these two molecules interact with each other, rearrange and 
. immobilize the hyaluronan." arts that these results were published in a major biochemical 
journal and are "already having an impact on researchers involved in matrix biology, particularly those worlung 
on the role of hyaluronan matrices in inflammatory diseases such as Crohn's disease of the bowel and asthma." 
does not identify the researchers working on Crohn's diskase or asthma applying the beneficiary's 
work and the record does not include letters fi-om them. As of the date of filing, the beneficiary's work at the 
petitioning institution had only been cited by a coauthor. 
xplains that this work is also relevant to human infertility, a professor at 
of Rome and a coauthor of the beneficiary's work, 
ted in cartilage and synovium in rheumatoid arthritis and 
th of whom have coauthored articles with the beneficiary, 
petitioning institution, provides similar information. 
further asserts that the beneficiary's work "has formed the foundati we @lave now 
su mitt to the National Institutes of Health to continue the important work I oes not explain 
how the efforts of his laboratory to continue to build on their own research results is unique in the field or 
indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition. 
research group leader at the University of Geneva who keeps in regular contact with 
he reviewed the research proposal the beneficiary submitted to the Lalor Foundation. 
concludes that the "results of this study will provide useful insights on [the mechanism involved in 
very interesting potential for applications in human medicine." Predictions of future 
contributions are not necessarily indicative of past contributions. 
h 
does not indicate that he had ever 
heard of the beneficiary prior to her association with someone e already keeps in contact with. As such, his 
letter is not indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition. 
a professor at the University of Insurbria in Italy, indicates that he met the beneficiary while 
institution in 2000. He discusses the importance of the beneficiary's research focus. but 
fails to explain how the beneficiary has already impacted the field. similarly, a staff 
scientist at the petitioning institution concludes that the beneficiary's work "should have [an] im~jact medically 
and economically." %- 
The record shows that the beneficiary is respected by her colleagues and has made useful contributions in her 
field of endeavor. It can be argued, however, that most research, in order to receive funding, must present 
some-benefit to the general pool of scientific knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher working 
with a government grant and whose work is referenced in a grant application has made a contribution 
indicative of international recognition in the field. Finally, we note that the beneficiary's importance to 
future research is not an element for the classification sought. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate that 
the beneficiary is already recognized internationally. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary had authored six published 
articles and six abstracts. The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on 
page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a 
postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in ths definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the appointee 
has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of 
Page 9 
the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even 
among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor research career." This report reinforces 
our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of international recognition; we 
must consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
As of the date of filing, the beneficiary had one article that had been cited twice and another article that had 
been cited once. As stated above, we cannot consider evidence of any recognition obtained after the date of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2@)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the respect of 
her collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international exposure for her work. 
The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international reputation as an outstanding 
researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the 
benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.