dismissed EB-1B Case: Statistical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 8, 2024 In Re: 29607292 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/Researchers) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(B). The Director 
of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish, as 
required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act provides that an individual is an outstanding professor or researcher 
if the person is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, has at least three 
years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area, and seeks to enter the United States 
for a qualifying position with a university, an institution of higher education, or certain private 
employers. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petlt10ner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i); 
1 "Academic field" means a body of specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or 
institution of higher education. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(2). 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 that is the subject of a very specialized 
dissertation. For example, it would be acceptable to conclude that a beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher 
Viswanadha v. Mayorkas, 660 F. Supp. 3d 759, 770-72 (N.D. Ind. 2023) (concluding that USCIS' 
two-step analysis is consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)); see also Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( describing the two-step process). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficia earned a Master of Science de lied Mathematics and Computational 
Science fromL...____,-------------------,,__ _ ___J in 2016 and a Ph.D. in 
Statistical Science from in June 2020. 3 He served as a 
postdoctoral researcher at .________________ ~_____,from August 2020 until 
March 2022. The Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as an Applied Scientist since March 2022. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary met at least two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F), thus satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of 
the record did not establish the requisite international recognition in his field. Upon review, we agree 
with the Director that the evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of 
others, original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of 
scholarly articles. As he therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the 
evidence of record when conducting the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 4 
that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that they have been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the academic field. See section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). In this matter, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 5 
in particle physics rather than physics in general, as long as it has been demonstrated that the claimed field is "a body of 
specialized knowledge offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher education." See 
6 USC1S Policy Manual F.3(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate an individual's eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher in their academic field. 
See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B). 
3 The Beneficiaiy worked as a research intern at~----------------~ during his graduate 
studies atc=:J 
4 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what it claims 
is "more likely than not" or "probably" trne. To dete1mine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
5 In the final merits analysis, the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Beneficiary's peer review 
activity, research contributions, two Chinese patent applications, published and presented work, and citation evidence, and 
explained why that evidence, as paii of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiaiy's 
recognition as outstanding at the international level. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director overlooked or did not properly 
evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualifies under 
this immigrant visa classification's high standards. It contends that the Director did not properly 
analyze the Beneficiary's published and presented work, citation count, letters of support, Chinese 
patent applications, and peer review service. 
It is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) is to 
establish a beneficiary's international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria 
must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. Therefore, to the extent that 
the Director first determined that the evidence satisfied the requirements of specific evidentiary 
criteria, and then evaluated whether that evidence, as part of the entirety of the record, was sufficient 
to demonstrate the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the international level, his analysis was 
in keeping with the statute, regulations, and USCIS policy pertaining to the requested immigrant visa 
classification. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's part1c1pation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner 
submitted documentation indicating that he has peer reviewed three papers for the Association for the 
Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, two papers for Journal of Computational and Graphical 
Statistics, and four papers for the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. He also 
peer reviewed one paper each for International Conference for Machine Leaming and Journal of 
Econometrics. An evaluation of the significance of the Beneficiary's judging experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the outstanding achievement required for 
this classification. 6 In many scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process 
through which articles are selected for publication or presentation at conferences. Participation in the 
peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in his academic field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the level 
of the Beneficiary's participation as a reviewer of manuscripts is indicative of or consistent with being 
recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. 7 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner submitted a letter of support from Dr. W-D-, an assistant 
professor atl Iof China, stating: 
[The Beneficiary] has been selected as a reviewer for many prestigious conferences and 
journals, including the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 
Journal o_f Computational and Graphical Statistics, Conference on Neural Information 
Processing Systems, International Conference on Machine Leaming ... and Journal o_f 
Econometrics. Similar standards to publication are enforced when selecting reviewers 
for top conferences and journals, in order to maintain the very best research available. 
I can confirm that his selection as a reviewer demonstrates his elevation standing as an 
outstanding researcher in the international scientific community. 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's participation as a judge should be evaluated 
to detennine whether it was indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area). 
7 For example, the record does not contain supporting evidence demonstrating that the specific journals that invited the 
Beneficiary to serve as a peer reviewer reserve their invitations for researchers who are recognized internationally as 
outstanding in the academic field. 
3 
Dr. W-D- did not indicate his particular affiliation with the aforementioned journals and conferences 
or discuss their specific requirements for selection of peer reviewers. 8 Moreover, reviewing 
manuscripts for journals that select their reviewers based on subject matter expertise or prior 
publication does not provide strong support for the petition, because possessing expertise or having 
published in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than being recognized internationally 
within the academic field as outstanding. 
In addition, a letter of support from Dr. G-C-, a professor at~--------------~ stated: 
[The Beneficiary] has participated as a reviewer for several top-ranking journals, 
including Journal ofComputational and Graphical Statistics, Journal ofEconometrics, 
Journal of the American Statistical Association (JASA), among others. He has also 
been selected by several conference organizations to serve as a reviewer for 
internationally recognized publications . . . . ~-----------~ as well 
as other journals, I can confirm his participation in the peer review process for those 
prestigious journals and conferences requires outstanding publication records on 
related research fields. The sufficient large number of reviews of around 30 works 
indicate that [the Beneficiary] is internationally recognized as outstanding in his 
academic field. 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations, however, does not satisfy a petitioner's 
burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af:fd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). The Petitioner did not offer evidence to corroborate Dr. G-C-'s claims that 
the Beneficiary served as a reviewer for JASA, performed "reviews of around 30 works," or provided 
his services for "top-ranking journals." Nor did Dr. G-C- list the above journals' specific ranking 
relative to other journals in the academic field or provide each of their particular criteria for choosing 
peer reviewers. 
At issue here is the extent to which the Beneficiary's peer review activities have required, reflected, 
or resulted in him being recognized internationally as outstanding in his field. As discussed, the 
Petitioner did not present documentation indicating the aforementioned journals and conferences' 
specific requirements for selection of peer reviewers. Therefore, although the record shows that the 
Beneficiary has reviewed papers for multiple journals and conferences, this evidence does not 
demonstrate how his peer review activity compares to or differentiates him from his peers in the field. 
Similarly, the record does not show that the Beneficiary has received any international recognition for 
his service as a peer reviewer. Without this or other evidence differentiating him from others in his 
field,9 the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's peer review experience contributes to 
establishing that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
8 Nor does the record include journal or conference rankings or other evidence to support Dr. W-D-'s claim about their 
"prestigious" reputation. 
9 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in the field, such as 
evidence that he has served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired prominent 
evaluation committees for reputable conferences. 
4 
With respect to the Beneficiary's research contributions, the record includes letters of support 
discussing his researcl projTts atl 11° For example, regarding the 
Beneficiary's work at , Dr. B-C-S-, a data scientist atl land coauthor of the Beneficiary, 
stated that they "proposed a novel Markov model to handle irregularly sampled, skewed and sparse 
population-level cancer screening data" and demonstrated its "improved classification capabilities 
over existing models." Dr. B-C-S- farther asserted that their "superior model of cancer screening 
allows researchers to more accurately track epidemiological disease progression" and "to effectively 
analyze skewed and sparse screening data," but he did not provide specific examples indicating that 
the Beneficiary's work has had a meaningful impact in the academic field or has otherwise risen to the 
level of a contribution that is recognized internationally as outstanding. 
Dr. G-C- indicated that the Beneficiary proposed "a novel nonstationary multivariate Gaussian process 
model for electronic health records (EHR) data to address the drawbacks of existing methodologies." 
He asserted that the Beneficiary's "method can be naturally generalized to any multivariate time series 
in various fields including finance, environmental science, and other fields. [The Beneficiary's] work 
has derived valuable insights that shed light on the challenges and opportunities in this field. 
Impressively, the article was accepted for publication in.______________ __, .... " Dr. 
G-C- did not sufficiently detail in what ways the Beneficiary's findings have advanced the state of 
research in his academic field or explain how his model has been utilized in the healthcare industry at 
a level indicative of being internationally recognized as outstanding. We recognize that research must 
add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, 
presentation, fonding, or academic credit, but not every research finding that broadens knowledge in 
a particular field renders an individual's work as outstanding or internationally recognized in his 
academic area. 
In addition, Dr. W-D- asserted that the Beneficiary's "research on functional data analysis has been 
exceedingly impressive and I am especially impressed by his pioneering work introducing the 
functional data analysis tool into plant science, in order to study plant traits, such as salinity tolerance, 
or plant-growth-related-traits." While Dr. W-D- farther indicated that the Beneficiary's 2017 
"research article, 'Growth curve registration for evaluating salinity tolerance in barley,' ... has had a 
considerable real-world impact and has been cited in more than 35 articles by other researchers 
worldwide," the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this work has affected the field in a substantial 
way that signifies international recognition or outstanding achievement in the academic field. 
Furthermore, Dr. R-G-, associate professor at'----------~ stated that the Beneficiary 
developed "a novel hidden Markov model ... to understand the screening process and cervical cancer 
carcinogenesis in detail and allowing researchers to more accurately track epidemiological disease 
~ion." Dr. R-G- asserted that "[t]his work was in collaboration with thel I 
L___J and has influenced researchers in applying these proposed statistical models to understand the 
risks and progression of cancer, based on the screening data in the real world." He also claimed that 
"[t]he field's adoption of [the Beneficiary's] the original research work exemplifies the widespread 
influence of his work on the field," but he did not offer specific examples of how the Beneficiary's 
findings have influenced the academic field outside his collaboration with the~ ______ _.
I I have been widely utilized in the healthcare industry for tracking epidemiological disease 
10 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
progression, or have otherwise affected his field at a level commensurate with being internationally 
recognized as outstanding. 
The Petitioner argues that the aforementioned letters from "experts in the field" show the Beneficiary's 
"international acclaim as a researcher." The letters offered by the Petitioner, however, do not contain 
sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, 
to show that the Beneficiary's work is viewed by the overall academic field, rather than by the 
references he selected, as substantially influential or otherwise indicative of international recognition. 
The Petitioner also maintains that the Beneficiary has "published articles in prestigious, top-ranked 
scholarly journals with international circulation," but it did not submit evidence showing the ranking 
of his journals relative to other publications in the academic field. Regardless, a high journal ranking 
is reflective of a publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any 
particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has had an impact within the field. 
Further, the evidence in the record does not establish that publication in a "top-ranked" journal or 
conference is sufficient to demonstrate that a beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding 
in the academic field. As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of professors and 
researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be 
an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether 
his articles demonstrate that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in the academic field. 11 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile showing that 20 of his research 
articles had received 128 cumulative citations. This Google Scholar information also indicated that 
the Beneficiary's five highest cited articles, entitled! I 
5 
1c2021), 1 1 
_ lc2017),I I 
(2020 , (2021 , 
and 
~------------~(2021) each received 41, 39, 14, 10, and 8 citations, respectively. 
The Beneficiary's remaining 15 articles each received four citations or less. The Petitioner did not 
specify how many citations for each of the Beneficiary's individual articles were self-citations by him 
or his coauthors. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's cumulative citation count, Dr. R-G- asserted that "researchers in the 
field of statistics, including professors of prestigious universities, receive citation counts that range 
from 50 to 100," and therefore the Beneficiary has "a high citation count in the field." Dr. R-G-, 
however, does not offer any statistical evidence to corroborate his assertion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
selects just five individuals and presents their Google Scholar citation profiles. The Petitioner claims 
that the Beneficiary's "citation count of 128 is comparatively high and outstanding" relative to the five 
individuals' cumulative citation count. The Petitioner does not explain why it chose these individuals 
or provide evidence demonstrating that their cumulative citation records are internationally recognized 
as outstanding in the academic field. Here, the Petitioner compares the Beneficiary's citations to a 
11 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l) (stating that a beneficiary's authorship of books or articles should be 
evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the beneficiary being recognized internationally as outstanding in 
a specific academic area). 
6 
limited, selected pool of individuals who all have lower citations than him. However, the Petitioner 
did not offer evidence showing researcher citation statistics for the Beneficiary's overall field, 
including those considered internationally recognized as outstanding in his field. The Petitioner 
attempts to distort the significance of the Beneficiary's citation record by only comparing it to a 
targeted number of handpicked researchers with lower citation rates rather than providing independent, 
objective citation data for the academic field at large. 
Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by 
the Beneficiary's articles with others in his field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary's work has been recognized at a level consistent with outstanding achievement in the 
academic field. The Petitioner has not shown that the number of citations received by the 
Beneficiary's published and presented work is sufficient to demonstrate a level of attention 
commensurate with being recognized internationally in his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the 
Act. 
The record includes evidence showin that the Beneficiary presented his work at scientific conferences 
such as 2022, I I 
....,__ ______. 2022, and,__ ______, 2021. The Petitioner did not, for example, provide evidence from the 
organizers that invited the Beneficiary to participate indicating that they reserve their invitations for 
researchers who are recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field. The Beneficiary's 
participation in the aforementioned conferences demonstrates that his research findings were shared 
with others in his field, but without documenting broader impact of his presented research, such 
participation is not sufficient to show that his work is recognized internationally as outstanding in the 
academic field. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence indicatin that the Beneficiar was listed as a coinventor on 
two Chinese patent applications, entitled 
---------~--------------' and ~--------------' While a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not by itself 
demonstrate that the inventor has made a research contribution to the academic field that signifies 
international recognition or outstanding achievement. Rather, the significance of the innovation must 
be determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the Petitioner has not shown in what ways the 
Beneficiary's inventions have advanced the state of research in the academic field or explained how 
his methods are being widely utilized by others throughout the field. The Petitioner therefore has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's patent applications have had an impact that is internationally 
recognized as outstanding in his field. 
Furthermore, the record includes documentation showing that the Beneficiary received a $300 I I
I !Travel Award" from thel IThe Petitioner provided information froml Istating 
that the purpose of this award "is to support participation inc=] Meetings by junior researchers. 
The....,_________ ~Travel A ward is open to any junior researcher. A junior researcher is a 
graduate student in a current degree program or someone who has received a Ph.D. or equivalent in 
the last 5 years." While the travel award is "granted via a competitive process," the Petitioner has not 
shown that the award is internationally recognized in the academic field. Nor has the Petitioner 
established that this $300 grant for covering a "junior" researcher's travel expenses to attend a~ I 
7 
meeting demonstrates the Beneficiary's recognition as outstanding at the international level in his 
field. 12 
Although the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is a skilled statistical modeling researcher, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he stands apart in the academic field through outstanding achievement 
and international recognition. After consideration of the totality of the evidence of the Beneficiary's 
work, including evidence of his published and presented research, citation record, peer review service, 
travel award, and Chinese patents, as well as the opinions of his colleagues in the field, we conclude 
that this documentation does not sufficiently establish that he has been internationally recognized as 
an outstanding researcher in the field. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary previously received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Sunlift Int'l v. Mayorkas, et al., 2021 WL 3111627 (N.D. Cal. 
2021); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, ajfd, 
905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating 
the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a 
district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an 
individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. 
See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F), and thus the initial evidence requirements for this classification. A 
review of the totality of the evidence, however, does not establish that the Beneficiary is internationally 
recognized as an outstanding professor or researcher in the academic field. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for 
the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 Further, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's travel award rises to the level of "major prizes or awards for 
outstanding achievement in the academic field." See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
8