dismissed EB-1B Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 0 9 2013 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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 Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(B) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
SELF -REPRESENTED 1 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you 
seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any 
motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please 
review the Form 1-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. See also 8 CF .R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Til 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
1 Although the applicant's appeal was filed by attorney , it was not accompanied by the required new Form 
G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative . See 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a). On August 22, 
2013, a request for a new Form G-28 was sent to attorney · via facsimile indicating that a new Form G-28 
must be submitted within seven days. A new Form G-28 has not been submitted, the applicant will therefore be deemed 
to be self-represented. 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petttton and the 
petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an enterprise software company. 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. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a Software 
Engineer (Research and Development). The director 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 and copies of previously submitted evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary enjoys 
international recognition as outstanding. 
Specifically, when the AAO simply "counts" the evidence submitted, the petitioner has submitted qualifying 
evidence under two of the regulatory criteria as required: judging the work of others and scholarly mticles 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) and (F). As explained in the final merits determination, however, 
much of the evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria does not set the beneficiary apart in the 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition, the purpose of the 
regulatory criteria. 1 Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) 
(enacted 56 Fed . Reg . 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record lacks the actual job offer issued by the petitioner to the 
beneficiary. An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001 ), aff'd, 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I. Statute 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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--
1 The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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, 
(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 accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
II. Job Offer from Qualifying Employer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor certification is not 
required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department , division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, division, or 
institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner has not submitted its job offer letter to the beneficiary as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). The petitioner's letters dated June 7, 2012 and October 26, 2012, describing and 
affirming the petitioner's offer of employment to the beneficiary do not constitute job offer letters to the 
beneficiary . These letters, addressed to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), are 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
not addressed directly to the beneficiary. The ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the 
offeree, not a third party. See Black's Law Dictionary 1189-90 (9th ed . 2009) (defining "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;" defining "offeree" as "[o]ne to whom an offer is made;" and 
defining "offeror" as "[o]ne who makes an offer"). 
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the beneficiary has been offered a permanent position, as the letters state 
only that the petitioner is offering "full-time, at-will employment." The petitioner provided no evidence 
establishing that the offer of employment is intended to be of an indefinite or unlimited duration and that the 
nature of the position is such that the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of continued employment. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(i)(2) (defining the word "permanent" as "either tenured, tenure-track, or for an 
indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of continued 
employment unless there is good cause for termination") . In light of the above, the petitioner failed to submit 
required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
III. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
A. Law 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 and/or 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 
and/or 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 June 27, 2012 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the academic 
field of "computational methods for metabolic networks ." Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary had at least three years of teaching and/or research experience in the academic field as of that date, 
and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the academic field as outstanding. At 
issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
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; 
(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 (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition filed 
under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with 
the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 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 significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been 
raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 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 determination" as the corollary to this procedure: 
2 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
(b)(6)
Page6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the 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 national or international acclaim" are 
eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 final 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 reasoning persuasive to the classification 
sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set fmth in Kazarian. 
B. Analysis 
1. Academic Field 
As a preliminary issue, the petitioner has not established that the academic field specified in the petition, 
"computational methods for metabolic networks," constitutes an "academic field" as defined by the regulations. 
Specifically, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(2) defines an "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for 
study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher education." On appeal , counsel 
specifically characterizes the field of computational methods for metabolic networks as "a highly specialized 
field." However, by regulatory definition, a body of specialized knowledge is larger than a very small area of 
specialization, in which only a single course is taught or is the subject of a very speci alized dissertation .4 The 
AAO will, therefore, determine whether the evidence establishes that the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the larger academic field of computer science as a whole, and not solely within 
the beneficiary 's very small area of specialization. 5 
2. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner initially asserted that the beneficiary was submitting qualifying evidence under three of the six 
criteria. The director determined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence under two of the criteria. 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under 
three criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act , requires 
qualifying evidence under only two criteria. 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 (December 22, 
2010) . 
5 The AAO note s the beneficiary received her B.S., M.S, and Ph.D. degrees in the academic field of Computer 
Science. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under two 
of the criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the 
academic field 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to 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 of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
The petitioner has not asserted that it was submitting evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), and the record contains no relevant evidence that relates to 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 submitted evidence that the beneficiary has participated as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or allied academic field. The AAO concurs with the director that this evidence qualifies under the plain 
language of the criterion set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field . 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary's 
contributions themselves be internationally recognized as outstanding. That said, the plain language of the 
regulation does not simply require original research but original "research contributions." Had the regulation 
contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have included the extra 
word "contributions." 
As purported evidence of the beneficiary's contributions to the academic field, the petitioner submitted letters of 
recommendation from experts within the field . Through these letters, the petitioner seeks to highlight that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
beneficiary's research "has heavily influenced the research of top research institutions and universities around 
the world," including the University of Georgia , Beijing Wuzi University, Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell 
Medical College, Indiana University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (New York), Beijing Forestry University, 
Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science (China), Case Western Reserve University (Ohio), and the 
University of Tokyo. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
at the 
Tel Aviv University . 
Director of the 
is the , the 
and serves on the editorial boards of several other journals 
including attests that he has not collaborated 
with the beneficiary but has come to know of her through her research. asserts that in his capacity 
as an he invited the beneficiary to write a shOit review or 
commentary article on "[d]ue to the reputation [the beneficiary] has earned in the 
field as a top researcher." asserts that the beneficiary is "an outstanding researcher who has made 
with [sic] extraordinary contributions to the filed," including her research on 
rriefly describes the beneficiary's development of algorithms for the enzymatic target identification 
problem. <:tsserts that the beneficiary's research "has subsequently inspired the work of other 
researchers" including of Beijing Wuzi University, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and 
an unidentified research team at the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science (Beijing) . 
concludes: "Such institutions have therefore recognized [the beneficiary's] work as critical to advancements in 
the field. In shaping subsequent research, [the beneficiary] has earned international distinction as an outstanding 
researcher in the field." 
In addition , briefly discusses the beneficiary's published article on 
, 
a scoring scheme developed by the beneficiary for aligned biological sequences, and highlights 
that this article has been cited in five articles by other researchers. He asserts that "it often takes about two to 
four years for a researcher's article [in this field] to generate citations in this field," and conclude s that the five 
citations to the beneficiary ' s work "is a significant achievement" that confirms "the intrinsic value" of the 
beneficiary's work. further asserts that the beneficiary's research findings on the method 
"have served as a foundation for the work of other research in the field," including researchers from the 
University of Georgia and at Indiana University. concludes that the fact that other 
scientists "have adopted the research results developed by [the beneficiary] is strong evidence that she has made 
a significant impact on the field and is highly regarded in the community as an outstanding researcher." 
highlights that the beneficiary ' s work has been cited more than 49 times, which he asserts is "a 
significant accomplishment" and indicative of distinction within the field, given the "specialized nature" of the 
field and the field's "generally low publication rate." Finally , briefly highlights the beneficiary 's 
judging experience as a special session chair and program committee member for the 
and as a reviewer for 
concludes that, in his capacity as the 
various conferences such as 
and 
of 
"journals 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page Y 
and conferences in our field have rigorous guidelines with respect to selecting reviewers, and session chairs" 
and that selected individuals "must be internationally established experts who have risen to the very top of their 
field due to outstanding original research contributions." 
letter is problematic in several aspects. First, while he briefly describes the beneficiary's research 
findings, fails to explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
academic field as a whole. Second, nakes several statements and conclusions about the impact of 
the beneficiary's work on other researchers, but fails to explain how he is qualified to make such statements . 
For instance, asserts that the beneficiary's research "inspired" and fanned the basis of other 
researchers' work, including of Beijing Wuzi University, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 
at Indiana University, and unidentified research teams at the Academy of Mathematics and Systems 
Science (Beijing) and University of Georgia, but he fails to explain the factual basis of his assertions regarding 
other researchers' work or how he is qualified to make such assertions. The petitioner submitted no 
corroboratory evidence - such as the actual publications by the other researchers or letters from the above 
researchers- to document the nature of the impact of the beneficiary's work on the other researchers' work. 
also provides no factual basis for his assertion that 49 citations to the beneficiary's work is "a 
significant accomplishment." Similarly, provides no factual basis for his assertions regarding the 
"rigorous guidelines" used to select reviewers and session chairs by journals and conferences in the field, or to 
explain in what capacity he is qualified to make statements on behalf of the actual joumals and conferences in 
which the beneficiary has served as a judge. The AAO observes that is an editor or serves on the 
editorial boards for 
none of which have utilized the beneficiary's services as a JUdge. 
Generalized assumptions about the selectiOn criteria of other conferences or joumals bear no weight. Overall, 
without providing any specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual contributions to the field or any factual basis 
to support the above claims, letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner provided a letter from Professor at Semmelweis University, Hungary. 
serves as an Editor -- and and 
has served or serves on the editorial boards of other joumals including and 
attests that he has not collaborated with the beneficiary but is familiar with her research due to 
their similar research interests. briefly discusses the beneficiary's research and published article 
relating to in-silica approaches for metabolic engineering, and asserts that her methods "are regarded as 
foundation for further research as her iteration phase solved the problem for the 
in less than 10 sand her fusion phase refined the results with a high accuracy." asserts that 
the six citations to this particular article is an indication of significant influence in the field, and asserts that in 
this "specialized field," articles generally take between two to four years to be cited. briefly 
discusses the beneficiary's research and published article relating to' 
developed by the beneficiary, and asserts that the beneficiary's results "became the standard results for 
followers to compare with." asserts that the 22 citations to this particular article is an indication of 
"heavy impact," again asserting that in this "specialized field," articles generally take between three and four 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
age 10 
years to be cited.6 _ also briefly discusses the beneficiary's research and published att icle relating 
to and assetts that the beneficiary's results "laid a foundation for other researcher s across the 
international scientific community to develop this field." asserts that the seven citations to this 
particular article is an indication of "scholarly value," considering that publication is low in this field . Like 
asserts that the beneficiary 's research has been "leveraged by other researcher s" 
including researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, 
Indiana University, and University of Georgia . Like highlights that the beneficiary 's 
work has been cited more than 49 times, which he asserts is "significant" considering the specialized nature and 
low publication rate of the field . Finally, like briefly highlights the beneficiary's 
judging experience for the and as a 
reviewer for conclude s that, 
in his capacity as the editor for . and ·, "journals or conferences such as 
these have very stringent criteria for the selection of chairs and reviewers" and that selected individuals "must 
have risen to the top of their field and be internationally recognized because of the outstanding caliber of their 
research." 
letter is problematic in several aspects. First, while he briefly describes the beneficiary 's 
research findings, fails to explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has 
contributed to the academic field as a whole. Second, makes several statements and conclusions 
about the impact of the beneficiary 's work on other researchers, but fails to explain how he is qualified to make 
such statements . For instance, . asserts that the beneficiary's research has "laid the foundation" for 
other researchers' work at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, 
Indiana Univer sity, and University of Georgia, but failed to explain the factual basis of his 
assertions regarding other researchers' work. The petitioner submitted no corroboratory evidence - such as the 
actual publications by the other researchers or letters from the above researchers - to document the nature of the 
impact of the beneficiary ' s work on the other researchers' work. also provides no factual basis for 
his assertion that 22 citations to an article, seven citations to another article , and 49 total citations to the 
beneficiary's work, is "significant." Similarly, 1rovides no factual basis for his assertions 
regarding the "very stringent criteria" used to select reviewers and session chairs by journal s and conference s in 
the field, or to explain in what capacity he is qualified to make statements on behalf of the actual journals and 
conferences in which the beneficiary has served as a judge. The AAO observes that is or was on 
the editorial boards for and 
but only attested to the beneficiary ' s judgmg expenence tor 
as indicative of her reputation an ac ievement s. ln parttcular , he 
AAO observes that while the beneficiary has reviewed one article for for which 1 serves 
on the editorial board, made no specific reference to the beneficiary's participation as a reviewer 
for generalized assumptions about another conference or journ al's selection criteria 
bear no weight. Overall, without providing any specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual contributions to the 
6 
previously assetted that articles in this "specialized field" generally take between two to four 
years, not three to four years, to be cited. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
field or any factual basis to support the above claims, letter contains primarily conclu sory 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from , Chair of the Department of Computer Scienc e at 
. who has served as Editor in Chief or editorial board member for journals including 
I 
'ld who has also served as guest editor for journals including 
il.SSeltS that 
he is "not in [the beneficiary's] immediate circle of supervisors or colleagues," but is familiar with her work. 
briefly explains the beneficiary's research and published article regarding and points out that this 
article has been cited seven times, which he characterizes as "a significant accomplishment in this niche field." 
also asserts that the beneficiary's scheme has been "heavily utilized" by researchers at the 
University of Georgia, Indiana University, and Case Western Reserve University . then briefly discusses 
the beneficiary 's research and published article regarding and points out that this research article has 
been cited by others in 24 articles, which he characterizes as a "significant testament to the great influence of 
[the beneficiary's] findings," considering that it takes approximately two to four years to publish an a1ticle.7 
then asserts that other researchers at Beijing Forestry University, Beijing Wuzi University, and Mount Sinai 
School of Medicine "have leveraged" the beneficiary's research on asserts that, in his 
capacity as Editor in Chief for the 
he invited the beneficiary' to review a paper "[b]ased on [the beneficiary's] outstanding research contributions 
to biological sequence analysis field." highlights the beneficiary's judging experience for 
and and asserts that this "speaks volumes to [the beneficiary's] international 
reputation." Finally, highlights that the beneficiary's work has been cited more than 49 times, which he 
asserts is "a significant achievement in our burgeoning field." 
letter is problematic in several aspects. Like the other letters, while briefly describes the 
beneficiary's research findings, fails to explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has 
contributed to the academic field as a whole. Second, makes several statement s and conclu sions about 
the impact of the beneficiary's work on other researchers at the University of Georgia, Indiana University , Case 
Western Reserve University, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing Wuzi University, and Mount Sinai School of 
Medicine , but fails to explain how he is qualified to make such statements or the factual basis behind his 
assertions. Again, the petitioner submitted no corroboratory evidence to document the nature of the impact of 
the beneficiary's work on the other researchers' work. Like the other letters, provides no factual basis 
for his assertion that 24 citation s to an article, seven citations to another article, and 49 total citations to the 
beneficiary's work, is "significant." While as Editor in Chief for , attested that he invited the 
beneficiary' to review a paper for he failed to give any detailed, factual explanation of the specific 
criteria he used to select the beneficiary as a reviewer for provides no factual basis for his 
assettions regarding the beneficiary's judging experience for and 
and he fails to explain in what capacity he is qualified to make assertions on behalf of those particular 
7 
In comparison, asserts that this article has been cited 22 times and that it generally takes about 
three to four years for an a1ticle in this field to be cited . 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
conferences or journals. Generalized assumptions about another conference or journal's selection criteria bear 
no weight. Overall, without providing any specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual contributions to the field 
or any factual basis to support the above claims, letter contains primarily conclusory assertions 
regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from , Professor of Computer Science at 
has served as a program chair for several conferences such as -~::::::========::::, 
asserts that he has not collaborated with the beneficiary but is familiar with her 
research. briefly explains the beneficiary's research and published article regarding and 
highlights that it has been cited 24 times, which he characterizes as "a significant achievement," considering that 
it takes up to four years to for a published article to be cited in this field. asserts that other 
researchers at Beijing Forestry Universit , Beiiing Wuzi University, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine have 
"adopted" the beneficiary 's research on briefly explains the beneficiary 's research and 
published article regarding and points out that this article has been cited seven times, which he 
characterizes as "a significant accomplishment." also asserts that the beneficiary's 
scheme has been "widely utilized" by other researchers at the University of Georgia and Indiana University. 
highlights that the beneficiary's work has been cited more than 49 times, which he asserts attests to 
the beneficiary's "significant impact on the field." then highlights the beneficiary 's judging 
experience for 
asserts that, "[b]ased on my service as Editor-in-Chief and Vice Chair, I can attest that 
journals and conferences such as these have exacting standards with regard to the selection of reviewers " and 
that reviewers must be "an established expert with an outstanding research record and an international 
reputation of expertise." 
Like the letters above, letter is problematic in several aspects . While briefly 
describes the beneficiary ' s research findings, fails to explain with any specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. Second, makes several 
statements and conclusions about the impact of the beneficiary's work on other researchers, but he fails to 
explain how he is qualified to make such statements or the factual basis behind his assertions . Again, the 
petitioner submitted no corroboratory evidence to document the nature of the impact of the beneficiary's work 
on the other researchers' work. The AAO observes that while attested that the beneficiary's research in 
has been utilized by researchers at Case Western University, who works at Case Western 
University, does not specifically mention this in his letter. In addition, like the other letters, 
provides no factual basis for his assertion that 24 citations to an article, seven citations to another a1ticle, and 49 
total citations to the beneficiary's work is "significant." provides no factual basis for his 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's judging experience for 
and he fails to explain 
in what capacity he is qualified to make assettions on behalf of those particular conferences or journals . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Generalized assumptions about another conference or journal's selection criteria bear no weight. While 
has served as a program chair for the 
in which the beneficiary has also participated as a reviewer, does not specifically 
mention this aspect of the beneficiary's judging experience or explain the specific selection criteria for this 
particular conference . Instead, he uses general language to assert that "journals and conferences such as these 
have exacting standards with regard to the selection of reviewers (emphasis added)." Overall, without providing 
any specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual contributions to the field or any factual basis to support the 
above claims, letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary 's 
contributions and reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
Information Science and Engineering at the 
has co-authored several atticles with her. 
He is also a lead guest 
research and published article regarding 
Associate Professor in the Department of Computer 
, who was the beneficiary's Ph.D . advisor and 
is a member of the editorial boards for 
and the 
editor for the special issue, 
and the chair of the program committee for the 
briefly explains the beneficiary 's 
and highlights that it has been cited 24 times, which he 
characterizes as "an outstanding and rare achievement," because he states that it takes two to four years for a 
published article to be cited in the field. asserts that other researchers at University of Tokyo, 
Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College (Houston), and Beijing Wuzi University have "adopted" the 
beneficiary's research on briefly explains the beneficiary's research and published article 
regarding md points out that this article has been cited seven times, which he asserts "[confirms] the 
intrinsic value of [the beneficiary's] article in this narrow field." also asserts that the beneficiary's 
scheme has been "heavily relied upon" by other researchers at the University of Georgia, Indiana 
University, and Case Western University. highlights that the beneficiary 's work has been cited 
more than 49 times, which he asserts attests to the beneficiary's "significant impact on the field," considering 
that "the publication rate in this narrow field is lower than that of larger fields." then highlights the 
beneficiary's judging experience for 
and 
asserts that "journals and conferences in our field select reviewers with rigorous 
guidelines." 
Like the letters above, letter is problematic in several aspects. While briefly 
describes the beneficiary's research findings, fails to explain with any specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field as a whole. Second, makes several 
statements and conclusions about the impact of the beneficiary's work on other researchers , but he fails to 
explain how he is qualified to make such statements or the factual basis behind his assertions. Again, the 
petitioner submitted no corroboratory evidence to document the nature of the impact of the beneficiary's work 
on the other researcher s' work. Like the other letters, provides no factual basis for his assenion 
that 24 citations to an atticle, seven citations to another article, and 49 total citations to the beneficiary's work, is 
"significant." provides no factual basis for his assertions regarding the beneficiary's judging 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
and he 
fails to explain in what capacity he is qualified to make assertions on behalf of those particular conferences or 
journals. Generalized assumptions about another conference or journal's selection criteria bear no weight. 
While L _ has served as the Chair of the Program Committee for the 
and the beneficiary also reviewed articles for the 
) does not specify which 
year(s) or program committee(s) he served on for this conference. Regardless, does not specifically 
highlight this aspect of the beneficiary's judging experience, nor does he explain the specific selection criteria 
for this particular conference. Instead, he uses general language to assert that "journals and conferences in our 
field select reviewers with rigorous guidelines (emphasis added)." Overall, without providing any specific detail 
as to the beneficiary's actual contributions to the field or any factual basis to support the above claims, 
letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and 
reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner provided additional letters of recommendation 
from chief editors, editors, associate editors, editorial board members, and conference chairs of several journals 
within the field. Through these additional letters, the petitioner seeks to establish that the beneficiary has made 
original research contributions of major significance to the field. 
The petitioner submitted a second letter from confirming the beneficiary's employment at the 
. The rest of the letter largely reiterates previous letter. 
The petitioner provided a letter from 
Chemical Research, 
, Professor in the Bioinformatics Center, Institute for 
is the Associate Editor for 
an Editorial Board Member for 
and was the Editor in Chief of 
2009. does not explain how he gained knowledge ·about the beneficiary's work. 
from 2006-
assetts 
that as a member of the editorial board for he invited 
the beneficiary as an expert reviewer due to her "original research achievements in the field of computational 
methods for metabolic networks, and the international reputation she has received as a result." 
asserts that reviewers for distinguished journals such as the above "should have achieved an outstanding caliber 
of research and received worldwide recognition for expertise in their field." highlights the 
beneficiary's selection as Guest Editor for the , which he asserts has "a selection 
process that may be even more stringent than that applied to journal reviewership described above [for 
· l" then discusses the beneficiary's 
research and published articles relating to ', asserts that her research has "significantly influenced 
researchers all over the world," and highlights that the beneficiary's research on has been cited 31 
times (self-excluding cites). points out that he has applied the beneficiary's research to his own 
research, stating: "For example, I and my colleague applied [the beneficiary's] novel minimal damage model in 
our study of metabolic networks, specifically the In addition, we extended the 
computational complexity of [the beneficiary's] innovative model." then goes on highlight that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
other researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science 
(China), and Weill Medical College of Cornell have applied the beneficiary's research. asserts that 
the beneficiary's research has been cited at least 54 times and 61 times internationally , and concludes that this is 
"a significant accomplishment, indicative of international influence." 
While attests that, as a member of the editorial board for 
he invited the beneficiary as an expert reviewer due to her research achievements and 
international reputation, does not provide any specific, factual information as to the actual selection 
criteria utilized for the above journal. General statements that the beneficiary was invited due to her research 
contributions or her international recognition, without any factual basis to support the statements, are 
insufficient to establish the actual criteria used to select reviewers. Furthermore, does not provide 
the factual basis for his assertion regarding the selection process for Guest Editors for 
which, regardless, amounts to no more than a speculation that bears no weight. 
Moreover, fails to explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
academic field. For instance, briefly explains in technical terms how he applied the beneficiary's 
research to his own research, but he fails to explain the contribution made by the beneficiary's research upon his 
own research, as well as the contribution of his own research upon the academic field. does not 
provide any factual basis to support his assertions regarding the impact of the beneficiary's research on other 
researchers or the significance of the beneficiary's citation record. Overall, without providing specific detail as 
to the beneficiary' s actual contributions or any factual basis to support the above claims, letter 
contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and thus, 
bears little weight. 
The petitioner provided a letter from ========:-Professor, Concordia 
attests that, as an advisory chair of 
he invited the beneficiary as a reviewer. 
also attested that this conference employs "rigorous guidelines with respect to the selection of reviewers" 
and that reviewer s for this conference "must be established ex erts who have risen to the very top of their field 
due to their outstanding research contributions." However, does not provide any specific, factual 
information as to the actual selection criteria utilized for this conference. General statements that the 
beneficiary was invited due to her research contributions or her international recognition, without any factual 
basis to support the statements, are insufficient to establish the actual criteria used to select reviewers . 
also asserts that he invited the beneficiary to serve as a reviewer for the 
Similarly, does not provide any specific, factual 
information as to the actual selection criteria utilized for the 
asserts that the number of invitations the beneficiary has received is "demonstrative of the 
international recognition that 
[the beneficiary] has achieved for her outstanding research and extraordinary 
expertise in the field." 
briefly describes the beneficiary's research and published articles relating to and highlights the 
fact that it has been cited 31 times, which he characterizes as a "significant achievement," considering that "the 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
publication rate in this narrow field is low, compared to others fields ." briefly describes how the 
beneficiary's research on has been "adopted and implemented" by other researchers , including at the 
University of Tokyo, Weill Medical College of Cornell, Kyoto University and Academy of Mathematics and 
Systems Science. then briefly describes the beneficiary's research and published article s relating to 
and highlights the fact that it has been cited seven times, which he again characterizes as a "significant 
achievement" in the "highly specialized field." briefly describes how other researchers, including at 
University of Georgia, University of Delaware, and Indiana University, have "applied" and "leveraged" the 
beneficiary ' s research. asserts that the beneficiary ' s research has been cited at least 54 times and 61 
times internationally and concludes that this is "an outstanding accomplishment, indicative of a significant 
impact a researcher's work has had on the field." However, fails to explain with any specificity how 
the beneficiary ' s research has contributed to the academic field. does not provide any factual basis to 
support his assertions regarding the impact of the beneficiary's research on other researchers or the significance 
of the beneficiary's citation record. Overall, without providing specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual 
contributions or any factual basis to support the above claims, letter contains primarily conclusory 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner provided a letter from , Founding Editor-in-Chief of the 
attests that 'employs critical and rigorous criteria" in 
selecting reviewers, and that reviewers for this journal "must have earned an international reputation as an 
outstanding researcher , based on their original research achievements ." asserts that the number of 
invitations the beneficiary has received "speaks to her international recognition." highlights the 
beneficiary's selection as Guest Editor for the and asserts that "only those 
researchers who have sustained international recognition for their outstanding research achievements are 
selected for such Editor positions ." briefly describes· the beneficiary's research and published article 
relating to in-silica approaches for metabolic engineering. He highlights the fact that the mticle has been cited 
eight times, which he characterizes as "an outstanding achievement" considering the "narrow field of 
computational methods for metabolic networks." briefly describes how the beneficiary's above research 
has been "applied" by other researchers, including at Semmelweis University, 
from the Univer sity of Minho (Portugal), at Pennsylvania State Univ ersity, and from Dalian 
University (China). assetts that the beneficiary's research has been cited at least 54 times and 61 times 
internationally and concludes that this is "an outstanding achievement" indicative of international recognition . 
Like the above letters, 
criteria utilized for 
does not provide any specific, factual information as to the actual selection 
. General statements 
that the beneficiary was invited due to her research contributions or her international recognition , without any 
factual basis to support the statements, are insufficient to establish the actual criteria used to select reviewers. 
Moreover, fails to explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the 
academic field. He does not provide any factual basis to support his assertions regarding the impact of the 
beneficiary's research on other researchers or the significance of the beneficiary' s citation record. Notably, J 
asserts that the beneficiary's research has been applied by at Semmelwei s Univer sity, but 
own letter does not mention the beneficiary's impact on his work. Overall, without providing 
specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual contributions or any factual basis to support the above claims, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and 
thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner provided a letter from 
Computer Information Systems, 
Chair for the 
, Associate Professor , Computer Science & 
states he was Conference 
tsserts that due to the beneficiary's 
"original research contributions that have earned [the beneficiary] international recognition as an outstanding 
researcher," the beneficiary "has repeatedly been invited by several distinguished organizations" as a reviewer. 
attests that selects its reviewers "based on the outstanding caliber of their original 
scientific contributions to the field, and the internationally distinguished reputation they have garnered as a 
result." asserts that the number of invitations the beneficiary has received is "a testament to not 
only the extraordinary caliber of the research she has advanced, but also the continued worldwide recognition 
she has garnered as a result." briefly describes the beneficiary's research and published articles 
relating to , highlights the fact that it has been cited 31 times, and then briefly describes how the 
beneficiary's above research has been "adopted" by other researchers, including at Weill Medical College of 
Cornell, Kyoto University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and the Academy of Mathematics and Systems 
Science. asserts that the beneficiary's research has been cited at least 54 times and 61 times 
internationally and concludes that this is "a significant achievement in this field," indicative of international 
recognition. 
ioes not provide any specific, factual information as to the actual selection criteria utilized by 
to select the beneficiary as a reviewer. General statements that the beneficiary was invited due to 
her research contributions or her international recognition, without any factual basis to support the statements, 
are insufficient to establish the actual criteria used to select reviewers. In addition, fails to 
explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field . 
does not provide any factual basis to support his assertions regarding the impact of the beneficiary's 
research on other researchers or the significance of the beneficiary's citation record. Overall, without providing 
specific detail as to the beneficiary 's actual contributions or any factual basis to suppott the above claims , 
letter contains primarily conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and 
reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
The petitioner provided a letter from , Associate Editor of 
and one of the beneficiary's co-authors. confirms that the above journal 
invited the beneficiary to serve as a reviewer, and that the journal "employs rigorous guidelines with respect to 
the selection of reviewers." urther attests that reviewers "must be established experts who have risen 
to the very top of their field due to their outstanding research contributions." confirms that he invited 
the beneficiary to serve as a reviewer for and the 
i. asserts that the number of invitations the beneficiary has 
received is "not only a significant honor and accomplishment in comparison with other researchers in the field, 
but also demonstrative of the international recognition that [the beneficiary] has achieved." briefly 
describes the beneficiary's research and published articles relating to highlights the fact that it has 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
been cited 31 times, and then briefly describes how the beneficiary's above research has been "adopted" by 
other researchers, including at Weill Medical College of Cornell, University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, and 
the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science. briefly describes the beneficiary's research and 
published article relating to , highlights that it has been cited seven times, characterizes this citation 
record as "a significant achievement," and briefly discusses how this research has been used by researchers from 
the University of Georgia, University of Delaware, and Indiana University. then asserts that the 
beneficiary's research has been cited at least 54 times and 61 times internationally and concludes that this is "a 
significant record which certainly confirms the broad influence of [the beneficiary's] research." 
Like the above letters, 
criteria utilized by 
and the 
-~- does not provide any specific, factual information as to the actual selection 
I 
to select the beneficiary as a 
reviewer. General statements that the beneficiary was invited due to her research contributions or her 
international recognition, without any factual basis to support the statements, are insufficient to establish the 
actual criteria used to select reviewers. In addition, fails to explain with any specificity how the 
beneficiary's research has contributed to the academic field. L . does not provide any factual basis to 
support his assertions regarding the impact of the beneficiary's research on other researchers or the significance 
of the beneficiary's citation record. Overall, without providing specific detail as to the beneficiary's actual 
contributions or any factual basis to support the above claims, s Jetter contains primarily conclusory 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and reputation, and thus, bears little weight. 
In support of the petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider, the petitioner submitted supplementary letters 
from and · . All of 
these letters substantially state the same thing: that they have become aware of USCIS's recent decision to 
decrease the weight of the beneficiary's citation record; that they nevertheless conclude that the beneficiary's 
citation record of 61 self-excluding citations (51 excluding co-authors) is a significant achievement and a strong 
indicator of the widespread impact of the beneficiary's research contributions; that another strong indicator of 
the beneficiary's contributions is the fact that the beneficiary's research has been utilized by researchers from 
around the world; and that they uphold their previous testimonies. None of the letters provided any further 
factual information or explanations to support the above assertions or the assertions made in their prior letters. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving ." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). 
The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, 
or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 
I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in 
its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 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 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page lY 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done 
above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight 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 (eomm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
eomm'r 1972)) . 
The letters considered above primarily contain conclusory assertions of widespread recogn1t1on and 
contributions, without specifically identifying the beneficiary's contributions and providing specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. users need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States , 745 F. Supp . 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
Similarly, merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden 
of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. 
eir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N .Y.). Moreover the letters , while 
not identical, all use very similar language consistent with a common source. We acknowledge that the 
authors all signed their letters, affirming the contents. Nevertheless, the use of slightly modified boilerplate 
language somewhat reduces the evidentiary weight of these letters. For these reasons, the letters, alone, are 
insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's research can be considered a contribution to the academic field 
as a whole. Other than the above letters , the petitioner has not submitted any other evidence in support of 
this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the requirements of the criterion at 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
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 of articles and a book chapter authored by the beneficiary . Thus , the 
petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under the plain language of 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) . 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted 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 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)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. 
3. 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
academic community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 
Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 
60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). 
The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators in the final merits 
determination. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner submits several letters from chief editors, 
editors, associate editors, editorial board members, and conference chairs of several journals within the field, 
purportedly attesting to the selection criteria for reviewers. However, all of these letters make general, 
conclusory assertions regarding the selection criteria for peer reviewers, such as calling the selection criteria 
"stringent," "exacting," and "rigorous." As discussed above, none of the letters provide any specific, factual 
information as to the actual selection criteria utilized to select reviewers. Again, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp . at 17. 
Generally, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. 
Without factual information to establish the actual selection criteria and evidence that sets the beneficiary apart 
from others in her field, such as evidence that she 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 petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's judging 
experience is indicative of or consistent with international recognition. 
Notably, the AAO observes that while the beneficiary completed eight reviews for 
alone, the Associate Editor of this journal is one of the 
beneficiary's co-aut ors. n addition, for at least one of the journals for which the beneficiary has been a 
reviewer, namely the beneficiary 
was specifically invited by the author, not by an editor of the journal itself. Furthermore, the email from the 
General Editor of states: "If this paper is not familiar with your research area exactly, please 
understand the journal's situation. Sometimes, it's very hard to assign all submitted papers to the reviewers 
if we should find exact reviewers only in their research scope." These factors all undermine the petitioner's 
assertion that an invitation to serve as a reviewer is indicative of the beneficiary's contributions to the 
academic field and international reputation as an expert in the academic field . 
The petitioner highlights the fact that the beneficiary has served as a Guest Editor for 
The petitioner asserts that the selection process as a Guest Editor "is even more stringent than that 
applied to peer reviewership." As evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from editors from unrelated 
journals speculating about selection process or the general selection process 
for all journals within the field, including one letter that states that the selection process "may be even more 
stringent than that applied to journal reviewership described above (emphasis added)." However, as 
discussed above , the petitioner failed to provide any objective documentary evidence to support this 
assertion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
The beneficiary's publication and citation history are also relevant considerations when evaluating the 
beneficiary's recognition in the field. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner repeatedly emphasize s 
that the beneficiary's research has been cited a total of 49 times, and asserts that this is high considering the 
narrow and highly specialized field of computational methods for metabolic networks . However, as discus sed 
above, the petitioner provides no factual basis or credible corroborating evidence to support this assertion ; the 
above letters from expetts - all of which contain conclusory assertions that this number of citations is high - do 
not constitute evidence as to fact. ·Furthermore, as previously stated, the petitioner must establi sh that the 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field in general, not only within a 
narrow and unique specialized area. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) (defining an "academic field" as "a body of 
specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher 
education"); USCIS Policy Memorandum Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-I40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADIJ-I4 
(December 22, 2010) (stating that by regulatory definition, a body of specialized knowledge is larger than a 
very small area of specialization) . Thus , even assuming arguendo that 49 total citations is high within the 
beneficiary's narrow research focus of "computational methods for metabolic networks," the petitioner has 
failed to establish that this citation record is high within the academic field of computer science as a whole . 
The petitioner repeatedly emphasizes that other researchers have relied upon and used the beneficiary's work in 
their own research. However, as previously discussed, the petitioner failed to provide any credible, objective 
corroborating evidence to support this assertion. The petitioner failed to provide the actual publications by the 
other researchers to show whether the articles substantively discuss the beneficiary's work rather than merely 
citing it as one among many other references, letters from the above researcher s, or other documentation that 
would establi sh the actual nature and the impact of the beneficiary's work on the other researcher s' work. All 
but one of the expert letters failed to provide any factual basis for their assertions regarding other researchers' 
works, and provided no explanation as to how they were qualified to make these assertions . Of the single 
expert, ho submitted a letter attesting that he applied the beneficiary's work to his own research, 
this letter did not explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's work actually contributed to his own work 
or to the academic field as a whole . 
In light of the above, our final merits determination reveals that the beneficiary's qualifying evidence, 
participating in the widespread peer review process and publishing articles that have not garnered significant 
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. The remaining evidence in the record, when considered as a whole, also fail s to 
establish that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the academic field . 
IV. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented researcher, who has won the respect of her peers . The 
record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an alien who is internationally 
recognized as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
qualified for the benefit sought. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 22 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.