dismissed EB-1B Case: Research

idmtifjring data deleted to 
preveni cL : ... :, ::;iv~arranted 
invasion a' personal privacy 
US. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 07 164 51735 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Datej~~ 8 g 2008 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(B) . 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN07 164 51735 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(B). 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a postdoctoral 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. The director also determined that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for 
classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
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, 
(I.) 
 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 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 3 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
Permanent Job Offer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment fiom 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 fi-om: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien 
a tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien 
a permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, 
division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full- 
time in research positions, and that it has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
(Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary 11 11 (7th ed. 1999) defines "offer" as "the act or an 
instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a contract 
on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an 
acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract." Black's Law Dictionary does not 
define "offeror" or "offeree." The online law dictionary by American Lawyer Media (ALM), available 
at www.law.com, defines offer as "a specific proposal to enter into an agreement with another. An 
offer is essential to the formation of an enforceable contract. An offer and acceptance of the offer 
creates the contract." Significantly, the same dictionary defines offeree as "a person or entity to 
whom an offer to enter into a contract is made by another (the offeror)," and offeror as "a person or 
entity who makes a specific proposal to another (the offeree) to enter into a contract." (Emphasis 
added.) 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it 
be made to the offeree, not a third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made 
"to the beneficiary" would simply be redundant. Thus, a letter addressed to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) afirming the beneficiary's employment is not a job offer within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 4 
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 petitioner indicated that the proposed employment was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a July 29, 2004 letter on the petitioner's letterhead signed by the 
beneficiary's supervisor, and addressed to the beneficiary offering him a postdoctoral 
associate position ending April 14, 2005 and an August 9,2004 letter on University Auxiliary Services 
department, and the Dean of the petitioner's College of Natural and Social Sciences and addressed to 
CIS, asserting that the petitioner had extended the beneficiary's employment "for an indefinite period 
provided availability of the research hnding." The 2007 letter does not constitute a job offer from the 
petitioner to the beneficiary. 
On May 22, 2007, the director issued a notice of intent to deny questioning whether the petitioner had 
offered the beneficiary a permanent job as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(i)(2). The director noted 
Internet research suggesting that postdoctoral appointments are typically temporary and concluded that 
the record did not contain evidence suggesting that the petitioner's policies were unique regarding 
postdoctoral positions. 
In response, counsel asserted that the 2004 letters were submitted as evidence of the beneficiary's 
continued employment with the petitioner and that the 2007 letter was submitted as the most recent job 
offer. Counsel characterized the director's Internet search as "superficial" and asserted that 
postdoctoral positions are no longer always temporary, resulting in Congress including non-tenure track 
"permanent" positions in section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. The petitioner submitted evidence that other 
universities offer "permanent" postdoctoral positions. Counsel objected to the director's request for the 
petitioner's policy manual regarding postdoctoral positions, asserting that the regulations do not permit 
such a request, but the petitioner submitted the UAS policy manual to avoid a denial for failure to 
comply with the director's request. The evidence of record suggests that UAS administers postdoctoral 
positions with the petitioning university. 
The petitioner submitted a March 1, 2007 letter on the petitioner's letterhead offering the beneficiary a 
anent" position with a relationship that "may be terminated for cause." The letter is signed by Dr. 
and 
 This letter constitutes an offer to the beneficiary and purports to predate the 
filing of the petition. Information in the petitioner's policy manual, however, raises questions about the 
authority of and to offer the beneficiary a permanent postdoctoral position 
administered by UAS. 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 5 
Before discussing the contents of the policy manual, we find that the director was justified in requesting 
the petitioner's policy manual. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the job offered meets the 
regulatory definition of permanent at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(i)(2). Where the initial required evidence, the 
job offer issued to the beneficiary, does not resolve whether the job is permanent as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(i)(2), the director may request additional evidence relating to the terms and condition of the 
position. 
While counsel refers us to page 19 of the UAS policy manual and asserts that the manual is "silent" as 
to the length of postdoctoral appointments, we find that page 9 contains information that calls into 
question the validity of the March 1,2007 letter. Specifically, the manual states: 
Employment at UAS is employment at will. Employment at-will may be terminated 
with or without cause and with or without notice at any time by the employee or by 
UAS. Nothing in this Handbook or in any document or statement shall limit the right to 
terminate or modify employment at-will. No manager, supervisor or employee of 
UAS has any authority to enter into an agreement for employment for any 
specified period of time or to make an agreement for employment other than at- 
will. Only the Executive Director of UAS has the authority to make any such 
agreement and then only in writing. 
(Emphasis added.) Rather than requiring that specific words must appear in aq offer of permanent 
employment, we will consider the totality of circumstances in appropriate cases. Here, however, the 
UAS policy manual is clear that employment may be terminated by UAS at any time without cause and 
without notice. There would appear to be no factors in these materials that would favor an 
interpretation that an employee in a position administered by UAS would ordinarily have an 
expectation of continued employment absent cause for termination. 
While the Executive Director of UAS signed the August 9, 200 
 e March 1, 
2007 letter. Page 9 of the UAS policy manual reveals that neithe uiiwmiw without the 
approval of the Executive Director of UAS, has the authority to offer employees in positions 
administered by UAS "permanent" employment as defined at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(2). 
 Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that the March 1, 2007 letter is an authorized offer of permanent 
employment. 
We acknowledge the submission of electronic-mail corres ondence 
.- a 
chemistry professor at the petitioning university, and 
 suggests changing 
the postdoctoral title for researchers who have held that position for several years in order to facilitate 
their eligibility for immigration benefits. At issue is not how long the position has been held but 
whether the most recent offer is for a permanent position as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(i)(2). 
Regardless, even assuming this electronic-mail correspondence evidences the petitioner's consideration 
of adding a more permanent tier for postdoctoral researchers who have held that title for several years, 
acknowledges that those in these higher tier positions earn more than a typical postdoctoral 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 6 
researcher, at issue is the job offered to the beneficiary as of the priority date in this matter. See 
8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). 
The petitioner did not initially submit the primary required initial evidence, the original job offer 
predating the filing date of the petition. Confirmations after the fact are not evidence of eligibility as of 
the date of filing. See generally 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. We 
acknowledge the submission of what purports to be a valid job offer predating the filing of the petition 
in response to the director's notice of intent to deny. The March 1, 2007 letter, however, appears to 
violate page 9 of UAS' policy manual, quoted above. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. Page 
9 of the UAS policy manual provides that UAS administered positions are terminable without cause 
and without notice. Only the Executive Director can enter into agreements offering different terms 
and conditions. The petitioner has not resolved the inconsistency between this information and the 
March 1, 2007 letter, not signed by the Executive Director, which purports to offer employment 
terminable only for cause. Thus, we are not persuaded that the petitioner has established that it had 
offered the beneficiary a permanent position, as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2), as of the date of 
filing. 
International Recognition • 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching andlor 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andlor research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on May 17, 2007 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of biochemistry. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three 
years of research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been 
recognized intemationally within the field as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 
intemationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 7 
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. 
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, 199l)(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 
29, 1991)). The regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or 
researcher is deemed outstanding. Id. The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien j. receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
The petitioner relies on the beneficiary's receipt of the Leadership Development Award by the Younger 
Chemist Committee (YCC) of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The "award" is actually an 
invitation to attend a Leadership Development Workshop (LDW) and also covers the expenses for 
attending the workshop. ACS members under the age of 35 may apply for the "award." In 2007, 
tions 
and- 
15 of the 90 applicants. In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, 
opined that "there can be no greater award to a young chemist than from the 
principal international governing body in the field honoring past achievement and notoriety as an 
emerging leader in the profession." (Emphasis added.) 
The director noted that the "award" was limited to those under the age of 35, acknowledged that the 
YCC award is based on "outstanding leadership involvement," and concluded that the award was not 
"commensurate with a major prize or award for excellence in the field." 
On appeal, counsel suggests that the director found the YCC award insufficient because it was based on 
"outstanding leadership involvement" rather than "excellence." Counsel asserts that the words 
"outstanding" and "excellence" are "interchangeable." Extrapolating the number of ACS members 
under the age of 35, counsel then concludes that the award is issued to the top .3 percent "of the pool of 
applicants." 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required evidence 
of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" has been 
removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized internationally as 
outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60897-01,60899 (Nov. 29, 199 1 .) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a major 
award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards cannot 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 8 
serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. Cf: 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Reading the director's discussion in its entirety, it is clear that the director's concern is the award's 
limitation to those 35 years or younger rather than the use of the word bboutstanding" instead of 
"excellence." 
It is significant that the most experienced and renowned experts in the field are precluded from 
applying for an LDW invitation. Thus, an invitation to attend this workshop, designed to encourage 
potential future leaders rather than recognize past achievement, does not suggest that the beneficiary 
is intemationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. The workshop invitation is clearly not a 
major prize or award. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
On appeal, counsel concedes that the director correctly found that the associations of which the 
beneficiary is a member do not require outstanding achievements of their members. We concur that the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any 
necessav translation. 
While the petitioner initially submitted evidence that the beneficiary's articles have been minimally 
cited, counsel did not initially present such evidence as relating to this criterion. In his notice of intent 
to deny, the director st 
 ote references could not serve to meet this criterion. In their joint 
response, and 
 rejected that position with little explanation and asserted that the 
beneficiary's work is sufficiently discussed in the citing articles to meet this criterion. For example, 
they assert that the citation of the beneficiary's work in a review article by et al. "is 
neither a footnote nor a mere reference." We acknowledge that the article is formatted with endnotes 
instead of footnotes. As the difference is merely one of formatting, we do not find endnotes any more 
persuasive than footnotes. We acknowledge that the review article devotes a paragraph to the 
beneficiary's work on extracting oil from walnuts. The review article, however, is 41 pages long and 
cites the beneficiary's article in endnote 138 of at least 152. 
The director noted that the published material must be about the alien and that the citations submitted 
were not in articles that are about the beneficiary's work. On appeal, counsel asserts that a qualitative 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 9 
evaluation rather than a quantitative analysis is appropriate and that the record contained sufficient 
evidence of the importance of the publications that cited the beneficiary's work. 
Counsel is not persuasive. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires 
that the published material be "about" the beneficiary's work. Articles which cite the beneficiary's 
work are primarily about the authors' own work or, in the case of review articles, numerous recent 
developments, not the beneficiary's work in particular. As such, they cannot be considered published 
material about the beneficiary's work. Moreover, the petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding researcher in medical science and cancer drug delivery systems. The citations are not about 
the beneficiary's work in this field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) 
requires that the published material be about the beneficiary's work "in the academic field." We 
interpret this phrase to include only the academic field in which the petitioner proposes to employ the 
beneficiary. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets 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 academic field. 
The petitioner initially submitted electronic-mail correspondence from 
Workshop Organizer for the Second Workshop on Computational Chem 
China, requesting that the beneficiary review a manuscript or, if unable to do so, suggest alternative 
reviewers. In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, confirms that the 
beneficiary reviewed the paper for the workshop and that reviewers "have been considered on the basis 
of expertise in co 
 nal chemist 
 in the international arena." In their joint response to the notice 
of intent to deny, =and " note that the reviewed article originates fiom Egypt, was 
presented in China and is inclu e on t e ecture Notes in Computer Science website. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary's minimal participation in the widespread peer-review 
process was insufficient to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel states: 
The Petitioner concedes that an article review - albeit for an international conference 
and at the request of an [sic] professor in an international school - satisfy this 
classification. 
Counsel's point is unclear and, at best, counsel is simply expressing disagreement with the director 
without explaining how the director erred in fact or law. We cannot ignore that scientific journals and 
conferences are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted manuscripts. Thus, 
peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without 
evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed 
an unusually large number of manuscripts, received independent requests from a substantial number 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 10 
of journals or conference organizers, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we 
cannot conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientrfic or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
The director acknowledged that the beneficiary's patents demonstrate that his work is "original" but 
concluded that merely demonstrating that the beneficiary's research does not duplicate the efforts of 
others is insufficient to meet this criterion. The director Mher concluded that the record lacked 
evidence of the impact the beneficiary's work has already had. 
On appeal, counsel appears to concede that the beneficiary's work is not even original, which the 
director did not allege, but asserts that requiring original work in the beneficiary's field is unrealistic. 
Counsel further asserts that the beneficiary's references adequately establish the influence of the 
beneficiary's work in the field "at the intemational level." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) unambiguously requires that the beneficiary's 
contributions be original. We are not persuaded that there are fields where the research need not be 
original to meet this criterion. That said, we concur with the director that the filing of patent 
applications, granting of patents and publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals adequately 
establishes that the beneficiary's work is "original" in that he is not simply repeating the work of others. 
We also concur with the director, however, that 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 unoriginal would be unlikely to 
secure any researcher 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 otherwise would be to imply that all original research is, 
by definition, "outstanding" weakening that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that 
most research is "unoriginal." 
As stated above, outstanding researchers should stand apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on intemational recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria 
to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Any Ph.D. thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. To conclude that every researcher who perfoms original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
In a similar vein, the evidence that the beneficiary is named on several patent applications establishes 
that he is a prolific inventor; but the very existence of the patents does not show that the beneficiary's 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 11 
inventions are more significant than those of others in his field. Significantly, this office has previously 
stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of 
influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5, 
221 n. 7, (Cornrnr. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by- 
case basis. Id. To establish the significance of the beneficiary's work, we turn to experts in his field, 
whose letters we discuss below. 
At the outset, we note that the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 1 9 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
fiom experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
The submission of letters from references in more than one country is not presumptive evidence of 
international recognition as an outstanding researcher. We must evaluate the content of the letters 
themselves. In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of 
international recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that 
specifically identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have 
influenced the field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of 
the petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than 
letters from independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely 
responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an 
opinion based solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the 
petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the 
petition. An individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that recognition. 
discusses the beneficiary's work at the petitioning university designing more effective self- 
assembly drug-delivery systems for use as hydrophobic drug delivery agents. 
 The beneficiary 
"intellectually contributed to the s thesis of an electron spin labeled anticancer drug, chlorambucil- 
tem a1 adduct." According t& this work was accepted without revision and published in 2006. 
further asserts that the etitioner has filed a patent application relating to this work, which is 
contained in the record explains that the beneficiary used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) 
techniques to prove that certain polymers were excellent carriers of hydrophobic drugs. 
 The 
beneficiary had presented this work as of the date of filing and was preparing a manuscript. m~ 
concludes that this work is a major achievement 
 have a considerable and revolutionary 
impact on new commercial anticancer drugs." does not, however, assert that any 
LIP? 07 164 51735 
Page 12 
pharmaceutical company has expressed any interest in licensing or otherwise utilizing the beneficiary's 
atent- ending innovation. 
m' then discusses the beneficiary's work with the study of the retention mechanism of High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). The beneficiary "used gas phase Xenon NMR to prove 
t non-polar solvents interact more than polar solvents with the surface of the column material." Dr. 
mi characterizes the article reporting these results as a "milestone publication" in chromatography, the 
most important inskumental technique in the pharmaceutical industry. 
I 
explains that the 
chromatography community appreciated the beneficiary's results because 
 is area of research is 
"underdeveloped." While the beneficiary was continuing in this area as of the date of filing, he had yet 
to publish any additional results. 
Finally 
 discusses the beneficiary's "discovery of antifreeze mechanisms including the knc ion 
recognition, interaction and dynamics involved in the antifreeze process." h 
explains that this research will e 
 y result in the discovery of more efficient antifreeze materials 
for biomedical research. While 
 speculates as to the future benefits of this work, it doesnot 
appear that the beneficiary had published or presented the results of this work as of the date of filing. 
Director of the petitioner's materials research partnership with Caltech, discusses his 
the beneficiary. This work, however, had yet to be published as of the date of filing. 
, Chair of the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the Bombay College of 
the beneficiary collaborate 
 oratory while in India and lists the 
publications that resulted from this collaboration. 
 does not, however ex lain how the 
beneficiary's research in India influenced pharmaceutica c emistry. Rather e discusses the 
significance of the beneficiary's work at the petitioning university, discussed above. For example, he 
asserts that the beneficiary's use of spin labeling to achieve a chemically bonded spin labeled anticancer 
drug produced a new drug that "has already shown greater anticancer activity than the parent drug." 
The record, however, lacks evidence that the pharmaceutical industry has expressed an interest in the 
beneficiary's new drug. 
, Head of Core Competence Coloration at Ciba Specialty Chemicals, discusses the 
beneficiary's work in the Analytical Development Laboratory of that company. asserts 
that the beneficiary was working towards his Ph.D. at the time and that Ciba "benefited from his 
progress in gaining an expertise in NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) spectroscopy, and other 
analytical instruments, which ultimately led to quality output from the analytical development 
laboratory in terms of structure elucidation and characterization of our novel molecules." While this 
letter establishes that the beneficiary advanced the research goals of his employer, it does not establish 
that the beneficiary's contributions at Ciba garnered him international recognition as an outstanding 
researcher. 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 13 
of ~a~aoka University in Japan asserts that he has "known of the [the beneficiary's] 
scientific prowess since 2000 when I came across his work at the Analytical Development Laboratory 
at Ciba Specialty Chemicals." that he collaborated with the 
beneficiary at Ciba on UV absorbents and fasteners. confirms that he continues to 
communicate about their field with the establish that the beneficiary's 
work at Ciba has had an influence in the field beyond his colleagues at that company. 
Vice Dean of the School of Chemistry a:d Materials Science at Shaanxi Normal 
University, asserts that he has "known of' the beneficiary's work since early 2006 but fails to explain 
how he became aware of 
 iary's work other than to reference his '‘personal observations of 
[the beneficiary's] work." 
 asserts that the beneficiary "has developed a novel method" to 
estimate the number of drug molecules in a single micelle by using relaxation NMR diffusion and 
NMR techniques. further asserts that the beneficiary's "original synthesis of spin labeling to 
achieve a chemically bonded spin labeled anticancer drug is a major achievement in the search of 
finding more potent anti-cancer drugs." while asserts that his own work in a similar area is the 
"major reason" why he is interested in the beneficiary's work, does not assert that he has 
adopted any of the beneficiary's techniques in his own laboratory. 
an assistant professor at the University of Debrecen in Hungary, asserts that he has 
"followed and reviewed [the beneficiary's1 research since he became a postdoctoral fellow" at the 
- 
petitioning university. 
 also asserts, however that he was "very much interested" in the 
alnut shell oil. does not explain how he first learned of 
that the beneficiary's work with chromatography provides 
polarity and salvation behavior of solvents in separation science." 
speculates that the beneficiary's work estimating the number of drug molecules in a micelle 
of drug delivery mechanisms using polymeric micelles." 
Finally, 
 capillary gel electrophoresis, a process similar to 
to study the gel (a cross- 
linked agarose polymer) used in electrophoresis." 
 that his laboratory "can 
does not assert that he has 
already applied or otherwise utilized the beneficiary's results in his own work and there is no evidence 
that he has authored published journal articles citing the beneficiary's work. 
etitioner did submit letters &om representatives of pharma 
a general manager of chemistry research and design at 
speculates that the beneficiary's new theories and tec 
revolutionary impact on new commercial cancer drugs.'' 
is pursuing the beneficiary's theories and te 
Vice President of Business Planning and Administration for 
importance of the beneficiary's area of research but fails to explain how the ben 
 's findings fiave 
already impacted pharmaceutical research. 
m 
oes not assert that 
 is pursuing the 
beneficiary's theories and technologies. Finally, 
 an executive, does not explain his scientific 
LIN 07 164 51735 
Page 14 
credentials and it is unclear whether he is an expert in the beneficiary's field or whether his expertise is 
more limited to management. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's contributions are consistent with a researcher 
who has attained intemational recognition as outstanding. Thus, the petitioner has not established 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 the beneficiary has authored six articles published as of the date 
of filing. The petitioner also submitted evidence of several conference presentations. The director 
concluded that the beneficiary's publication record and minimal citation was insufficient to meet this 
criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director improperly required evidence that the beneficiary's 
publication record established his international recognition as outstanding, whereas the regulations 
provide that it is meeting two criteria that establishes eligibility. Counsel further asserts that the 
number of citations, given the recent publication of the articles, and the "intemational importance" of 
the beneficiary's publications overcome the director's "disingenuous" position that authorship of 
published articles is inherent to the field of research. 
As stated above, the regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor 
or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Thus, the evidence submitted to meet 
an individual criterion must be in some way indicative of or consistent with intemational 
recognition. The implication of counsel's assertion on appeal is that two "accomplishments" 
inherent to the field are any more indicative of intemational recognition than one such 
accomplishment. We find such an implication untenable as it would not limit this classification to 
those researchers who truly stand apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction 
based on international recognition. Id. 
As stated by the director, 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 this definition are the 
acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or 
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 the appointment." Thus, this national organization 
LlN 07 164 51735 
Page 15 
considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun 
"a full-time academic and/or research career." 
Moreover, for biological scientists, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 15 1 
(2006-2007 ed.) reflects that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent 
position involving basic research." The handbook also provides that university faculty spend a 
significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their findings. Id. at 224. In addition, 
the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do research and publish their findings." 
Id. at 225. This information reinforces our position that publication of scholarly articles is not 
automatically evidence indicative of international recognition; we must consider the research 
community's reaction to those articles. 
We are not persuaded that the beneficiary's articles have been garnered a "large number of citations" as 
claimed by counsel on appeal. The record reflects that four articles have cited the beneficiary's article 
on walnut shell oil and a bibliography of current literature in mass spectrometry lists this article. 
Finally, the same article is listed as one of the top 25 articles in that journal during 2004. We find four 
citations to be minimal. Moreover, none of the beneficiary's articles on drug development have been 
cited at all. We will not presume that, given sufficient time, the beneficiary will become frequently or 
even moderately cited. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Any future citations would have 
to support a future petition. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for his work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an 
alien who is internationally recognized 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.