dismissed EB-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16288086 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 8, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner , a software products and services company , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 
outstanding professor or researcher in the field of software engineering . See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic 
field. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director overlooked or did not properly 
evaluate evidence in the record , and that this evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualifies under 
the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility , a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically , section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher if: 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area , and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary received both his Master of Science degree in Biological Sciences and his Bachelor 
of Engineering degree in Chemical Engineering from thel I I I in India in July 2013. He has been employed as a Senior Research Software Development 
Engineer with the Petitioner's Applied Science and Engineering Research group since 2015. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in his field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly articles. As he 
therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record when 
conducting the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence 2, 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 3 
1 USCTS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 251& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
3 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activity, research contributions, published and presented work, patents, and citation evidence, and explained why that 
2 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that "[ w ]hen taken together, the evidence demonstrates by more than 
a preponderance of the evidence that [the Beneficiary] is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
researcher in the software engineering field." The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "has served 
as a reviewer and program committee member for leading journals and international conferences 
within the larger fields of Software Engineering and Applied Computing." It farther contends that the 
record includes letters of support from experts in the field that "provide persuasive evidence that [the 
Beneficiary] is internationally recognized as outstanding in his field." Additionally, the Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary's five published U.S. patent applications and three pending U.S. patent 
declarations demonstrate his "eminence and distinction in the field." It also claims that the 
Beneficiary's work has been "highly relied upon by the academic research community and by software 
developers in the industry." 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria 
must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. More specifically, 
outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on international recognition. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). Therefore, 
to the extent that the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the plain language 
requirements of specific evidentiary criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the 
entirety of the record, was sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the 
international level, his analysis was in keeping with the statute, regulations, and policy pertaining to 
the requested immigrant visa classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted documentation indicatin that he served as a ro ram committee member for the I ~ 
This documentation indicates that the 
Beneficiary's duties as a program committee member involved reviewing papers that were submitted 
for presentation at the conference. The record includes an October 2019 letter from thel I 
Organizing Chair stating that the Beneficiary's "reviews were very helpful in the selection of 
outstanding works for oral presentation at the conference." 
The Petitioner also presented emails inviting the Beneficiary to review papers submitted to Empirical 
Software Engineering (August 2019), the 13th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference 
(ISEC 2020), the 35th Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Symposium on Applied 
Computing (SAC 2020), and the 27th Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 
International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER 2020). The 
record, however, does not include evidence showing that the Beneficiary accepted these invitations 
and completed manuscript reviews for the aforementioned journal and conferences. Invitations to serve 
as a peer reviewer or program committee member do not constitute evidence of one's participation as the 
judge of others' work. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) specifically requires "[e]vidence 
of the the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others" 
evidence, as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding 
at the international level. 
3 
( emphasis added). Unlike withl l the Petitoner has not provided evidence from the editorial 
staff of Empirical Software Engineering or the organizers ofISEC 2020, SAC 2020, and SANER 2020 
indicating that the Beneficiary has actually performed peer review services in response to their email 
invitations. 
An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is appropriate to determine 
if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for this classification. 4 In many 
scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process through which articles are 
selected for publication or presentation at conferences. Participation in the peer review process does 
not automatically demonstrate that an individual is internationally recognized as outstanding in his 
academic field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the level and frequency of the Beneficiary's 
participation as a reviewer of manuscripts ( once as a program committee member forl b 
are indicative of or consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "was selected to judge the work of other researchers at top 
ranking conferences and journals." The Petitioner provided information from Google Scholar 
indicating that the journal and conferences for which the Beneficiary was invited to serve as a peer 
reviewer or program committee member are ranked in the top 20 in their respective subject matter 
sub-category (Software Systems) in terms of their "h5-index," a measure related to the journal and 
conferences' respective impact factors. 5 However, the record does not contain sufficient support for 
the Petitioner's claim that "[ o ]nly researchers who are internationally recognized as outstanding are 
continually selected by top ranking publication venues to serve as a reviewer." The Petitioner did not, 
for example, provide evidence demonstrating that the specific journals and conferences that invited 
the Beneficiary to serve as a peer reviewer or program committee member reserve those invitations 
for researchers who are recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. 
At issue here is the extent to which the Beneficiary's peer review activities have required, reflected, 
or resulted in his being recognized internationally as outstanding in his field. As noted, the Petitioner 
did not establish the journal and conferences' requirements for selection of peer reviewers and program 
committee members, and therefore we are unable to evaluate the Beneficiary's peer review activities 
in light of those requirements. For example, reviewing manuscripts for conferences that select 
program committee members based on subject matter expertise would not provide strong support for 
the petition, because possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than being 
recognized internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Therefore, although the record shows that the Beneficiary has reviewed papers for I I it 
does not demonstrate how his peer review activity compares to or differentiates him from his peers in 
the field. Similarly, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has received 
any international recognition for his service as a peer reviewer. Without this or other evidence 
differentiating him from others in his field, 6 the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's 
4 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
5 This Google Scholar list of top 20 journal and conference rankings did not include~I -~ 
6 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
4 
peer review experience contributes to establishing that he is internationally recognized as outstanding 
in his academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 7 
discussing his research projects at the PetitioFn.::;er:..,_a:::.:n:.:cd::......:a:.:.t_,__ __ -,-_______ ____. under the 
guidance of and . 8 For example, regarding the 
Beneficiary's research involving I J associate professor 
in the Department of Computing at indicated that he co-advised the 
Beneficia 's Bachelor's thesis and that the "collaborated to ether to fublish I I ' _ I ex lained that 
through their research, he and the Beneficiary "developed ___________ T'"'"'"?" ____ _ 
and identified various vulnerabilities on practical system ~----------~ ~-----" 
further asserted that their "research had a significant impact on the research community because it 
provides a novel method for verifying cloud-based software," but he did not offer specific examples 
of how their findings have been widely utilized in the software engineering field or have otherwise 
influenced the Beneficiary's field at a level commensurate with being internationally recognized as 
outstanding. 
I I associate professor in the Computer Science Depart;:;;;m=en:;:;,;t:.....:a::..:tl=======l.....:U:::..;n:;;:;;i:....:.v..::ec::..:rs::.c::.it::... 
ofl I also discussed the Beneficiary's research rela-;:..:t=in::l2....:..to::........:th::.e::...L. ___ --r- _____ ---; 
stating that the Beneficiary "demonstrated how to build -.,__--..---------.---' that used.__ _ __. 
methods to automatically identify security threats." In addition, indicated that "[t]he 
I !Library for verification ofl O O I that [the 
Beneficiary] built was able to analyze and debug these I !automatically rather than 
manually .... " I !further stated that he "direct! relied on the Beneficia 's novel research 
to advance m own research on I built a tool 
called ... I inte rated with the Beneficiaq'sJ~ _ __.library to enablel I 
.__ __________________ __. I J did not further elaborate or explain 
whether the Beneficiary's findings have been implemented beyond informing the research of others 
in the same field, and if so, the extent of their application. While I ~sserted that he was 
"highly impressed" by the Beneficiary's work, he did not sufficiently detail in what ways the 
Beneficiary's findings have already advanced the state of research in the academic field or explain 
how his work has already influenced the wider field beyond the teams of researchers who have directly 
cited to his articles. 
assistant professor in computer science atl l 
~1-is-t-ed-s-ev_e_r_a_l _a_e_r_s_in~which he cited to the Beneficiary's research. I I stated that in his 
work on.__ ________ .--______ he "leveraged [the Beneficia~'s] past work on 
identifying vulnerabilities in the~-----~such as I j I I 
andl I Also, we used his research to support the formal correctness of our tool." 
evidence that he has completed reviews for a substantial number of distinguished journals or conferences relative to others 
in his field, served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired prominent evaluation 
committees for reputable conferences. 
7 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered e""ac=h,....,o=n=e.,_. ------, 
8 According to his curriculum vitae, the Beneficiarv was a student research intern a1 I in 2012 and was 
supervised by bot~ I andl ] 
5 
Whilel I asserted that the Beneficia 's "research on paves 
the way for creating products and tools based in.__ ____ ____.' he did not provide specific examples 
indicating that the Beneficiary's work has affected the field of software engineering in a substantial way 
that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
With regjrd to the Beneficiary's work to improve software development processes,~1----. __ _ 
I assistant professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering a~~--~ 
University, indicated that he "first became aware of [the Beneficiary's] work through publications at 
the International Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering and ACM Foundations of Software 
Engineering (FSE) Conference." I I asserted that he has "personally relied on [the 
Beneficiary's] innovative work in I l I L and AI to advance my own 
research," but the record does not show that the Beneficiary's publications at the International 
Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering and the ACM Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE) 
Conference have had a meaningful impact in the academic field, have been extensively cited by 
independent researchers, or have otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is recognized 
internationally as outstanding.9 We recognize that research must add information to the pool of 
knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic 
credit, but not every research finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field renders an 
individual's work as outstanding or internationally recognized in his academic area. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's work for the Petitioner,~--------~ Partner Director of the 
Petitioner's Applied Science and En
9
ineering Group, stated that "[the Petitioner] has deployed [the 
Beneficiary's] novell JJ I and artificial intelligence technologies to 
software developers both within [ the Petitioner] and outside of [ the Petitioner] ( through [ the 
Petitioner's] partners and customers)." For example,! !indicated that the Beneficiary 
"created thel I that is ~ I service that uses machine learning~t_o_l_ea_rn_s_,__s_ic--'.\-____ __, 
and performs J§is I I to identify development gaps in " He further 
asserted that l__Jhas so far been deployed by several th · :ware developers on.__ ___ ____. 
I I positively affecting 4[926 I changes .... " also noted that the Beneficiar 
"published his research work on the tool in his paper, 
I I at the Symposium on Networked Systems 
Design and Implementation, which he claimed is a "top-ranking venue for publication in the field," 
but the record does support a conclusion that an article published in this conference automatically 
constitutes a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding in the software engineering 
field. 101 ~ s statements do not indicate that the Beneficiary played a principal role in devising 
this software tool relative to the eight other authors, including its first author. Additionally, the 
Petitioner has not established the level or scope of individual recognition the Beneficiary has received 
as a result of this contribution, and the evidence does not support a determination that participating in 
the development of this software tool is sufficient to set the Beneficiary apart as outstanding from 
others in the field. 11 
9 According to March 2020 citation information the Petitioner submitted from Google Scholar, the Beneficiary's article at 
the International Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering had received only one citation and his aiticle at the ACM 
FSE Conference had not received any citations. 
10 The Beneficiary is identified as one of nine authors of this paper. 
11 For instance the March 2020 information from Goo le Scholar does not include a citation count for!~ ____ ____. 
6 
Additionally,! lstated that the Beneficiary has "developed research at [the Petitioner] that 
enables software developers to identify major features of software I I that require an 
extensive review process." I lfurther explained that in the paper, entitled I I 
'------------------------------------' the Beneficiary 
presented a tool for accelerating "the code review process for thousands of software developers inside 
and outside of [ the Petitioner]. Th software that [ the Beneficiary] created has 
enabled over 200 repositories to analyze and predict th ,__ ______ _,for over 10,000 code 
changes." 12 While this software tool has been used by the Petitioner to accelerate the review process, 
the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's work has had a meaningful impact in the academic 
field beyond the Petitioner and its partners or customers, or has otherwise influenced the field at a 
level rendering him internationally recognized as outstanding. 
The Petitioner argues that "[t]he Director improperly dismissed expert letters demonstrating that [the 
Beneficiary] is internationally recognized as outstanding." The expert testimonials offered by the 
Petitioner, however, do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include 
adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the overall 
academic field, rather than by a solicited few, as substantially influential or otherwise indicative of 
international recognition. 
The record includes three 2019 ~-------------------------~ 
'--------------' forms relating to methodologies the Beneficiary invented during his 
employment with the Petitioner. The Petitioner also submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has been 
listed as a co-inventor on five "U.S. Patent Application Publication(s)" it filed in 2018 and 2019. 
While a declaration or published patent application may eventually result in a patent, they do not 
constitute a granted U.S. patent. Furthermore, a patent recognizes the originality of the idea, but it 
does not by itself demonstrate that the inventor has made a research contribution to the academic field 
that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement. Rather, the significance of the 
innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the evidence related to these inventions 
is limited to copies of the declarations and patent application publications themselves. The declarations 
and patent application publications are not discussed in the Petitioner's statements or the expert 
opinion letters, and the record is otherwise lacking an explanation as to how these inventions have had 
an impact that is internationally recognized as outstanding in the software engineering field. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary "has published in journals and conferences that are 
within the top 10 most impactful publication venues in his field." The record contains rankings from 
Google Scholar and the CORE Rankings Portal for several of the conference proceedings in which the 
Beneficiary has published his work, including A CM/IEEE International Co11ference on Software 
Engineering and Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. For instance, the 
Google Scholar rankings listed A CM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering as 1st 
among "Software Systems" publications and Symposium on Networked Systems Design and 
Implementation as 4th among "Computing Systems" publications. 
12 According to the March 2020 Google Scholar information, the Beneficiary's aiiicle presenting this work at the 
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering 
(PROMISE 2019) had received only one citation. 
7 
A high ranking or impact factor reflects a publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, 
show the influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has had an 
impact within the field. Further, the evidence in the record does not establish that publication in a 
journal or conference proceeding with a high impact factor alone is sufficient to demonstrate that a 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. As authoring scholarly 
articles is often inherent to the work of professors and researchers, the citation history or other 
evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and 
recognition that his work has had on the field and whether his articles demonstrate that he is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 13 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's March 2020 Google Scholar profile 
showing that his research articles had received 227 cumulative citations. 
Google Scholar farther indicated that the Beneficiary's four highest 
This information from 
cited articles, entitled 
I (2014), 1 I 1---------------------___.___,I c2013), [ I 
1-------------------------.-, ...,...,.(2....,...0_,,13...,....),-a__.nd "I : I 
I (2011) each received 150, 48, 9, and 6 citations, respectively. 14 The Petitioner .__ ______ __. 
did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by the 
Beneficiary or his coauthors. Furthermore, without comparative statistical evidence indicating how 
often others in the Beneficiary's field are cited, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of 
citations received by his publications and presentations represents interest at a level consistent with 
outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted examples of five articles, includin international articles, which 
cited to the Beneficia 's work. 15 For instance a stud ublished b entitled 'I I 
cites to the Beneficia 
and s paper, entitled 
f-----,.----.-------,-----'' In Part 7, the article's authors identified the Beneficia 
,__ ___ and ,__ ______ s paper as one of multiple studies which re orted ' 
approaches" that "have been used to analyze the security of.__ __________ ____,'16 This 
article, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Beneficiary and his coauthors' work from the 
44 other papers referenced in the article. 
13 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
14 The Beneficiary's remaining aiiicles were each cited four times or less. His top two most cited papers were both 
coauthored with his bachelor's thesis advisorsJ I andl I 
15 These articles which cite to the Beneficiary's work are primarily about the authors' own research, and not the 
Beneficiary's work. As such, they do not constitute published material about the Beneficiary's work. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
16 Specifically, the authors referenced the Beneficiary,! I and~I _____ i's paper (endnote.--17'-'--'-.;..;.c....., 
papers by five other research teams ( endnotes 16, 26, 28, 33, and 39). g the Benetlcµa. J..l:.....:...l:l:..1.1.J.J:...i-~-"'-
that the Beneficiary and his coauthors used "applied! I and e th'L._ ___ ..---__ ........_. ....... ......., 
work focuses on constructing I from thd.__ __ _,b reported by and building the.....,_ ____ _ 
I I to map the attack trace to web-site actions." 
8 
Another article written byl l, entitled L----------.------r------,_ _____ ____J 
references two of the Beneficiar an s a ers entitled 
and --------~--------.------,-----------------' ~------~ ' In this article state that the Beneficiar and his coauthors "analysed the 
security ofL-_--r----------,. ____________ J· However, all this work is 
based on abstract~---------- and so delicate implementation details are ignored." This 
article does not differentiate the Beneficiary and his coauthors' two papers from the 45 other papers 
referenced in the article or otherwise demonstrate that their work is outstanding. The Petitioner has 
not established how citations of this kind translate into international recognition or outstanding 
achievement. The remaining three articles generally discuss the dozens of cited source articles in 
similar terms and there is no special emphasis on the Beneficiary's work. The submitted articles 
acknowledge his research contributions to the advancement of what appears to be an active field of 
research but are not indications that the Beneficiary has been recognized internationally as outstanding 
in the area of software development. 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has taken 
some notice of his work, the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his 
published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention commensurate with 
being recognized internationally in his field. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the amount of citations to the Beneficiary's work represents interest at a level 
consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
As further documentation of published material relating to the Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner 
submitted media articles discussing the results of a cucumber-growing competition held in 
autonomous greenhouses atl lin the Netherlands. 17 For 
instance, according to an article in Venture Beat, "[t]he competition included five teams, which ran 
greenhouses remotely from other parts of the world." This article states that I I which 
included the Beneficiary and was also comprised of members from the Petitioner and students from 
Dutch and Danish Universities, won t~etition by growing "more than 50 kilograms of 
cucumbers per square meter, according tol__Jofficials." 18 
An article posted on the indicates that the Petitioner's! I led L...-----;=========;;---' by Principal Research Engineer! ~eat out four other interqisciplinary teams to win the 
Autonomous Greenhouse Challenge, creating an agent that produced more than 55 kilorrams of 
" 19 · "~~,_d,,. ews and entitled L I 
.__---~---------------~------.========r' states that "a Harrow, Ont. 
scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada" named~--~---- "along with scientists from 
[the Petitioner], the Ontario Ministry of Food, Rural Affairs and Agriculture, as well as Danish and 
Dutch university students - participated in the first annual Autonomous Greenhouse Challenge" and 
won the competition. 20 
17 While authors of the Venture Beat, PrecisionAg, and Nieuwe Oogst articles were identified, the authors of remaining 
articles were not provided as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
18 The Beneficiary's name is not mentioned in the Venture Beat article. 
19 This article quotes I I and discusses his work. It also includes a photograph that identifies the Beneficiary 
and three others as members ofl I 
20 The Beneficiary's name is not mentioned in the Yahoo News article. 
9 
The record includes additional articles available on the websites of the Petitioner, D, Hortibiz, 
SeedQuest, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PlanetTech, PrecisionAg, and Nieuwe Oogst 
discussing! ts victory at I I first annual Autonomous Greenhouse Challenge. These 
articles focus mainly on the competitionj ~ orl l and not the Beneficiary's 
work. 21 In addition, versions of the same article appear on the different websites. For example, the 
Hortibiz and SeedQuest articles are identical, as well as the Venture Beat and PlanetTech articles. 
While the aforementioned articles show that the Beneficiary's team won the Autonomous Greenhouse 
Challenge and that other members ofl I individually received some media attention, this 
evidence falls short of rendering the Beneficiary internationally recognized as outstanding in the 
academic field. 
The Petitioner also resented a December 2018 certificate stating that the Beneficiary was a ~I---~ 
and "suc,essfullylpart1·cioated in tbe Autcrnomous Greenhouse Challenge 
organised by._______.and sponsored by and~_ ------~f' While the record includes the 
aforementioned articles discussing the Autonomous Greenhouse Challenge, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's winner certificate is commensurate 
with "major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). Without corroborating evidence verifying the winner certificate's stature and 
international significance, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's certificate signifies that 
he is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field_ 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the Program Committee Co-Chairs of the PROMISE 
2019 conference stating that "the paper titled I I I I presented by [ the Beneficiary], is recognized as a paper 
of high quality at the 15th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in 
Software Engineering (PROMISE 2019) and invited for a special section in the I11formation and 
Software Technology journal_" The record also includes a "Call for Papers" announcement on the 
PROMISE 2020 website, but there is no mention of a "paper of high quality" award. 22 The Petitioner 
has not offered supporting evidence showing the Beneficiary's award's stature in the field or its 
international significance beyond this conference. Nor has the Petitioner presented evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's award is recognized at a level commensurate with being 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a July 2012 email from~l _____ ___.lofl,__ _ ___,I to the 
Beneficiary, stating: 
We would like to award you for your help on: $1500 ~----.=========="-----=-------''-----'-----, for all the CSRF related attacks in 
.__ _____________________ __. since this issue was partly 
known, but your additional research helped us to a better understanding of the issues 
and the remedy. 
21 Nor do these articles identify the Beneficiary by name. 
22 The Petitioner has not presented evidence demonstrating that this award constitutes a major prize or award for 
outstanding achievement in the academic field. See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
10 
Plus another $500 for the 
If you send me an address we can send you a check for $2000.00 USU.or we can do a 
wire transfer. 
The Petitioner has not provided supporting evidence showing th ~----,-,-----------~ award's stature or significance in the field of software engineering. 23 Nor has the Petitioner 
demonstrated that this is award renders the Beneficiary internationally recognized as outstanding in 
the academic field. 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled software development engineering 
researcher, the Petitioner has not established that he stands apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the 
evidence of the Beneficiary's work in the areas of formal methods, machine learning, and artificial 
intelligence, including evidence of his patent applications, research articles, citations to those articles 
by others in the field, his participation as a peer reviewer, published material relating to his work, his 
awards, and the opinions of experts in the field, we conclude that this documentation does not 
sufficiently establish that he has been internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the 
field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary 
criteria, and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A review of the totality of 
the evidence, however, does not establish that he is internationally recognized as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
23 The Petitioner has not presented evidence demonstrating that this award constitutes a major prize or award for 
outstanding achievement in the academic field. See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
11