dismissed EB-1B Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
· Date: FEB 2 5 2013office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: . 
Ben~ficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security . 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigrati ,on Scrvio.:s 
Administrative Appeals Office (/\/\0) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
·FILE: 
PETITION: , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursu~tnl to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find . the ·decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your cas~ ·. AJI of the . 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any furth~r inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office . 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied .the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
'information that you WiSh tO have COnsi.dered, you may file a motion tO reconsider_or a motion to rcclpen 
in accordance with the instructions on Foim I7290B, Notice of Appeal or Motiof!, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements fodiling such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R, § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires any motion In be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.-
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis;gov 
(b)(6)
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 filed this immigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding 
. ' . . . 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Iinmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner, a California corporation, is self-described as a provider 
of networking ser-Vices and solutions. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanent! y 
in the United States as a researcher/software engirieer. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not establishe~ that the beneficiary had attained the 
·outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel contends the director 
applied an improper standard in determining whether the beneficiary had attained the outstanding 
level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher. Counsel asserts that 
the petitioner has su~mitted sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for 
classification as. ari outstanding researcher. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional 
documentary evidence. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with 'the director that the record fails to establish 
that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition. Specifically, when we simply "count" the 
evidence submitted, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under two of the regulatory 
criteria as required, judging the work · of others and scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the final merits_ detennination, however, much of the 
evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria reflects routine duties or accomplishments in 
the field that do not, as ofthe date of filing, set the beneficiary apart in the academic community 
through eminence and . distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the . 
regulatory criteria. 1 Employment-Basedlmmigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703 , 30705 (proposed July 
5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). · 
I. Law 
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): 
* * * 
-1 The . leg~l authority for this two-s~ep analysis will be discussed at}ength below. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
(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 teaGhing or research in 
the academic area, and 
(iii) the. alien seeks to enter the U~ited States -- · 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the · 
academic area, 
(II) 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 full-time in research activities and has achieved 
documented accompiishments in an academic field. 
H. International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[ e ]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists 
the following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least 
two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) 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 of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(b)(6)
Page4 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to 
the academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Kazarianv. USCIS, 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 2010) .. Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court 
took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet two of the given evidentiary 
criteria. With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)"and (vi), the court concluded that 
while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the si~ificance of the evidence submitted 
to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits 
determination." /d. at 1121-22. · 
The court stated that the AAO's 
evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations.2 
. Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence,"the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detenninat .ion" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS dete.rmines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements . have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained nationcil or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
/d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a fmal merits determination. 3 While involving a different classification 
than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's 
2 SpeCifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary rcquircnicms 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iXF)). · 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence uildcr three 
criteria whereas the classification at issue in . this matter, section 203(b}(l)(B) of the Act, requires qualifying 
. evidence under only two criteria. 
(b)(6)
PageS 
reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center 
decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 CF.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003) 
(recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
III. An:alysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 31, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as a researcher who is 
recognized internationally as· outstanding in his academic field. The petitioner has submitted 
documentation./ pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R . 
. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 4 
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 submitted· evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed paper submissions for 
several international professional symposia and conferences, as well as a ·manuscript for the 
professional journal s This evidence 
·qualifies under the plain language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Pursuantto the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, however, the nature of these duties may 
be and will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
.field. . 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted five reference letters (three from the beneficiary's 
immediate circle of colleagues · and collaborators) and a copy of a U.S. patent, for which the 
beneficiary is not listed as an inventor, listing the beneficiary's work as a reference. The plain . 
hmguage of the regul~tion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(iX3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary's 
contributions themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That being said, the plain 
langtiage of the regulation does nor simply require original research, but an original "research 
contribution." Had the regulation cOntemplated merely the submission of original research, it would 
4 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence nut. 
discussed in this decision. 
5 Although the petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary was requested to review a paper for thl! 
. _ and was listed as a reviewer in Issue 21 (2010) of the publication, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary completed the requested review. · 
(b)(6)
Page6 
have said so, and not have included the extra word "contribution." Moreover, the plain language of 
the regulation requires that the contribution be "to the academic field" rather than an individual 
laboratory or institution. 
Citations, such as a reference to the beneficiary's work in a patent, are evidence of the impact and 
influence of the article cited. A review of the submitted print-out from of 
U.S. patent reveals it lists the beneficiary's work as one of several references. The 
beneficiary's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative 
of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle ·of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 FJd 
at 1122 .. The citation history will be considered below in our final merits determination. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has authored articles,. and that many of the reference letters 
refer to the fact that the b~neficiary has authored scholarly articles regarding the subject matter of 
his research which have been presented at conferences and sympqsia. .The regulations, however, 
include a separate criterion for scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(F). If the regulations . 
are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a · 
separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. (We will consider the articles . under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). Even if we considered the original nature of the . beneficiary's 
research to qualify it under the criterion at.8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), and we do not, whether 
or not the contributions are indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition in the field is 
a valid consideration under our final merits determination. 
professor of computer science at the . 
states that he niet the beneficiary in 2009 at an international symposium in Seattle. He 
states that he is "quite fainiliar with the nature of [the beneficiary's] work" and that the beneficiary 
is highly regarded in the field "because Of his strong analytical skills and deep understanding of how 
compilers .can affect the performance of embedded systems.". He further states: 
[The beneficiary's] work on compiler optimization for embedded systems is 
very important. For embedded systems, program size is of paramo,unt 
importance. His work improves previous work on program size reduction. 
Most previous works are built around a suffix tree. (The beneficiary) modified 
the suffix tree construction algorithm for yielding further program size 
reductions beyond what is possibie with sutrtx trees alone . . 
However, does not explain how the beneficiary's research contributions have 
impacted the academic field as a whole. 
chairperson of the computer science department of the 
states he met the beneficiary in 2007 at a professional conference in Dubai at 
which they each presented a publication. He states "[the beneficiary] is recognized throughout the 
international computer science . community as a leading researcher for his contributions to 
networked/distributed databases." He goes on to state, · "what makes [the beneficiary's] 
networked/distributed database system truly outstandiqg is it is faster than other researchers in the 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
field could show." does not describe the beneficiary's specific research cpntribution to 
the field or assert th~t the beneficiary's research is becoming one of the "widely accepted standard 
techniques" as would be expected of a contribution to the field as a" whole. 
a senior compiler engineerat states that he hired 
the beneficiary for an internship at and was his supervisor and mentor. He called 
the beneficiary's work on compiler optimizations for embedded systems "unique" and "signitic"ant,'i 
stating "for reducing the size of embedded systems programs, [the beneficiary's] deep insight into 
tree-data structures helped him to replace suffix trees with reverse prefix trees." He states • [the 
beneficiary's] novel reverse prefix tree algorithm is superior to the suffix tree algorithms commonly 
found in industrial compilers ... " However, he does not assert that the beneficiary's technique is 
becoming one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a contribution 
to the field as a whole. He further states: 
An optimization pass such as [the beneficiary's] is claimed to be 'the most 
important missing optimization,' and it is hoped that it will soon become part of 
gee [the most widely used compiler system]. . 
However, speculation as to a future contribution cannot establish that the beneficiary has already 
contributed to the academic field as a whole. does not explain how the beneficiary's 
research findings are already being applied in the field. 
associate professor of computer engineering, states that she was the beneticiary's 
doctoral dissertation advisor at from September 2002 to June 2010, and was 
a co-author on most of the beneficiary's publications. uses identical language to 
in stating "[the beneficiary's] deep insight"into tree-data structures helped him to replace 
suffix trees with reverse prefix trees ... "resulting in "programs smaller than what has been possible 
so far with suffix tree alone." However, does not provide examples of independent 
research institutions using the beneficiary's research. She states that the beneficiary's research _in 
. program compaction will result in smaller and cheaper chips, reduced energy consumption and 
faster program execution times. However, as stated above, speculation as to a future contribution 
cannot establish that the beneficiary has already contributed to the academic field as a whole. 
also states that the benefic~ary's participation as a peer reviewer for certain professional 
journals and at certain professional conferences is evidence that _he is internationally recognized as 
being outstanding in his field. We acknowledge that the beneficiary reviewed paper submissions 
for national and international professional symposia and conferences, as well as manuscripts for 
pr~fessional journals. The regulations, however, include. a separate criterion for judging the work 
of others in the field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any 
logic, ·it must 'be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary 
requirement from judging. (We have considered evidence ofthe beneficiary's judging experience 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)). Whether or not the beneficiary's judging experience is 
indicative of the beneficiary's international recognition in the field is a valid consideration under 
our final merits determination. · 
r 
I 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
a co-worker of the beneficiary's at the petitioning company, states he has worked 
with the beneficiary for one year. He states that the beneficiary's strong background in networking, 
distributed systems and embedded systems makes him ~ valuable asset. He states thiH the 
beneficiary's insight into tree data.;.structures for accessing statistics data will help improve the 
. . overall performance of the petitioner's "next generation flagship core router, . NG" increasing 
NG's attractiveness and giving the petitioner a "competitive edge in a very aggressive market." 
Although describers how the beneficiary's research has benefitted the petitioner , he 
does not explain how those contributions have already impacted the academic field rather thai1 · 
simply t~e work of the petitioner. ·' 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregard ed 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g ., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 
2000) (citing cases) . The Board also ·held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial .and dc;>cumentary evidence, where available." /d. If 
testimonial evidence lacks sp~dfidty, detail, or credibility, .there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998) . 
. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above . 
United States ·Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCI'S) may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony . See Matter of Caron Imernational , 
19·I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. /d. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as the AAO .
has done above, .. evahiate the cpntent of those letters as to whether they suppor t 
the alien's eligibility. See id: at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n ~ 2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USClS may 
even give lessweight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is· in any way ·questionable. /d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 ·I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). · · 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and 
vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying · contributions and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions have · inflllenced the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitio.ner's burden of proof 6 
·Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
beneficiary's research , while original, can be considered a contribution to the field ·as a whole. 
6 . . . . . . 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) ; Avvr 
Associates; Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly , USCIS need not acccpl primarily 
concll!sory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9; 15 (D.C. Dist. 1 lJlJO). 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholq.rly books or articles (in scholarly journals witlz 
international circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence tha·t several articles authored by the beneficia-ry have been 
published in professional journals and international · conference publications. Thus, the petitioner 
has submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
·I 
In light of the above, the petitioner has ~ubmitted evidence that meets tWo of the criteria that must 
be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically the 
petitioner submitted evidence to meet the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). 
The next step, however, is a final merits determination that considers whether the evidence is 
. consistent with the statutory standard in this .... matter, international recognition as outstanding. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
. . . . 
It is important ·to note at the outset that the controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish 
international recognition, and any evidence 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 o~ international recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria to be used in 
evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemeq outstanding. Emplo_yment-Based 
Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enaCted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 
(Nov. 29, 1991)) . . 
The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the benef}ciary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. 
See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's participation as a peer 
reviewer for a professional journal and at certain professional conferences is evidence that he is 
internationally recognized as being outstanding in his field. As stated above, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed paper submissions for international 
professional symposia and conferences, as well as a manuscript for 
~ . _JThe AAO cannot ignore .that scientific journals are peer reviewed 
and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. 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 manuscripts for 
a journal that credits a small, elite _ group of referees, received · independent requests from a 
substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of or consistent with 
international recognition. · 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
Regarding the beneficiary's original research, as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level 
of a contribution to the academic field as a whole. Demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was 
. "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community through eminence and distinction based on international· 
recognition. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure 
the beneficiary a Master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. To argue that 
all original research is, by definition; "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful 
meaning, and to presume that most researchis "unoriginal." -
In addition, the two independent references do not indicate t~at they learned of the beneficiary's 
work through the benefichrry's international reputation. Indeed, the record lacks evidence that a 
significant number of members of the academic field outside of the beneficiary's. immediate 
circle of colleagues are even aware of his work. 
While the beneficiary has published articles, original published research, whether arising from 
research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from others in the 
researcher's field. Of far greater importance in this proceeding is the impact the beneticiary's 
work has already had on the overall academic field. The beneficiary's citation history is a relevant 
consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his 
own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1ii2. While evidence that the petitioner's 
work is widely cited can serve to establish the impact of this work, the record does ilot contain 
evidence that independent experts have consistently cited the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner has submitted the beneficiary's citation record from Google Scholar. A review of 
the citation history reveals that one ofthe beneficiary's 11 articles was cited six times, three articles 
were cited three times each, and the remaining seven articles were each cited two times or less, for a 
combined total of 21 citations. We note that the article cited six times was published in 200() and 
that this petition was filed in 2012. Hence, it is under~tandable that this article would likely be more 
widely ·cited within this longer time frame. We note that the documents from Google Scholar do 
not list the number of times each of the beneficiary's articles was cited per year since publication. 
We also note, that the petitioner has not provided citation averages for the respective journafs in 
which the beneficiary's artiCles have appeared, so it ·cannot be determined if any of the articles 
have exceeded the one-year citation average for articles in their respective journafs. 7 The 
oetitioner has orovided a copy of portions of a book that has cited the beneficiary's work titled 
hO\vever, a review reveals the book does not substantively discuss the 
beneficiary's work, but merely cites it among many other authorities. ln addition, as discussed 
above, the petitioner has provided a copy of a U.S. patent, listing the beneficiary's work as one of 
several references. Regardless, while evidence that the beneficiary's work is widely cited can serve 
71nstead, on appeai the petitioner has provided a print-out from Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators, 
listing the average citation rates by year for journal articles in the computer sciences field (among other fields) for 
the eleven-year period from January 2000 throug~ December 2010. While counsel notes that five of the 
beneficiary's I 1 journal articles had higher-than-average citation rates, the remaining articles had lower-than­
average citation rates. 
,. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
to establish the .impact of this work, the record does not contain evidence .that" independent experts 
have consistently cited or relied upon the beneficiary's work, or other comparable evidence that 
demonstrates that the beneficiary's publication record is consistent with international recognition, 
In light · of the above, the final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying 
evidence, participating in the widespread-peer review process and pu.blishing articles that have not 
garnered widespread citations or other response in the academic field; does not set the beneficiary 
apart in the academic community · through eminenCe and distinction based on international 
recognition, the purpose of the regulatory criteria. 56 Fed. Reg. ·at 30705. 
C. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher/software engineer, who has 
won the respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of 
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, and the petition 
will be denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, the . burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § i361. Here, 'that burden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
; .