remanded EB-1B Case: Computer Science

data dekted to 
t My unwm v== ind~n of pe-1 privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 098 53467 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)r:B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
th~office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. - 
) 4' Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 098 53467 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director will be withdrawn and 
the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
The petitioner is a software development for photoimaging related technology firm. It seeks classification of 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 research scientist. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary has attained the outstanding level of achievement required for the category of outstanding professor 
or researcher. While we find that the petitioner has overcome this determination on appeal, the mattler will be 
remanded to the director for a determination as to whether the petitioner had made a permanent job offer to the 
beneficiary as of the date of filing. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) withn 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 
(111) 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. 
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 andlor research in 
the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while worlung 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 
WAC 03 098 53467 
Page 3 
degree has been recognized withn the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
andlor research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from former or current employer(:;) 
and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the alien. 
The sole issue to be considered in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary's scientific accomplishments are 
internationally recognized as those of an outstanding researcher in his field. Service regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(i)(3)(i) state that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be accompanied by 
"[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field 
specified in the petition." The petitioner must meet at least two of six stated criteria. The petitioner claims to 
have qet the following criteria: 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. 
asserted that the beneficiary had contributed to texture analysis, relying on a letter fi-om 
an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In response to 
the director's request for additional documentation, the petitioner quoted from several references asserting that 
the beneficiary had also contributed to face detection and recognition technology, image segmentation and 
natural materials modeling. Counsel reiterates these claims on appeal. 
Obviously, -the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstrating that the befieficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research. 
Research work. that is not origmal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's degree, let alone 
classification as an o tstading researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the 
l beneficiary has wo international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reasori that the 
beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To argue that all orignal research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is not original. To establish the significance of the beneficiary's work, we turn to experts ir~ his field, 
whose letters we discuss below. 
he beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), 
asserts that the benefici 's Ph.D. dissertation developed the "texton model" for visual material rr:cognition 
based on surface relie -her asserts that this model "has been studied and applied by researchers in 
both the US and Europe." In addition, the beneficiary "played a major role in an effort to build a universal 
image segmentation engine by combining different visual signals in the normalized cut fi-amework." (:Emphasis 
in orignal.) According thile worlung on this project, the beneficiary "successfully segmented 
thousands of images," first large-scale demonstration of results of image segmentation in 
computer vision." Final1 explains that the beneficiary's model for texture synthesis "is by far the 
most famous technique 
Prior to entering UC Berkeley, the beneficiary was an undergraduate at the California Institute of Technology 
a professor at Caltech, asserts that the beneficiary's undergraduate thesis 
"proposed a new idea for modeling objects, which we call the 'constellation model."' In a second letter, Dr. 
Bserts that he has "taught classes based on [the beneficiary's] research at Caltech." 
WAC 03 098 53467 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted more independent letters attesting to the beneficiary's contributions to the f eld. Dr. 
sserts that he has a short history of texture synthes~s research work 
beneficiary's] texture synthesis work as a milestone that caused a shift in the res 
explains that other researchers built on this work, including In ad 
the beneficiary developed a segmentation algorithm for image analysis and 
personally uses the publicly available software resulting from this work. In a 
that "researchers from around the world either use [the beneficiary's] algorithm or compare their results against 
his." 
an associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, explains that prior segmentation 
systems evaluated simple images such as indoor scenes and man-made objects. The beneficiary's segmentation 
method, however, "is based on an ingenious combination of texture and contour cues, and has been tested on 
extremely challenging natural images containing grass, foliage, animals, etc." In addition, a recent prestigous 
conference contained "3 to 4 papers which can be traced directly based to" the beneficiary's texture synthesis 
model that bears his name. On appeal, the petitioner submits these articles, one of which describes the 
beneficiary's work as "pioneering." 
The director concluded that letters are not "evidence" of contributions of major significance. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits course schedules from several universities in the United States, Canada and Israel reflecting 
that the beneficiary's work is required reading for those courses. 
This office consistently states that the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. Rather, evidence in existence prior to the 
preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with 
the petition. An individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials 
reflecting that recognition. We reject, however, the director's implication that reference letters are not 
"evidence." Rather, we find that such letters are more persuasive when supported by other evidence. 
We find that the record, including the course materials submitted on appeal, adequately demonstrate that the 
beneficiary's work on textual synthesis is highly cited and required reading at universities around the world. 
This additional evidence sufficiently supports the claims made by the beneficiary's references. Thus, we find 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly book or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academicjield. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary had only authored two articles and that such a publication record 
was too limited to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel notes that the beneficiary had, in fact, authored more 
articles, 12 as of the date of filing. The petitioner resubmits the articles on appeal. While several of the articles 
are published in conference proceedings, they are full-length articles, not abstracts. The beneficiary had also 
authored a textbook chapter. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, sets forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. 
Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 
WAC 03 098 53467 
Page 5 
expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." 
Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers 
who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor research career." This report reinforces CIS'S position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of international recognition; we must consider the 
research community's reaction to those articles. 
Prior to appeal, the record contained a list of 93 articles that allegedly cite the beneficiary's work. The list, 
however, is not printed from a citation index and is self-sewing. On appeal, the petitioner submits :several of 
these articles, demonstrating that the beneficiary has, in fact, been widely cited.' Thus, we find that the 
petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Upon careful consideration of the evidence offered with the initial petition, and later on appeal, we conclude 
that the petitioner has satisfactorily established that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition by meeting 
two criteria. Thus, the petitioner has overcome the objections set forth in the director's notice of denial and we 
need not address counsel's less persuasive arguments regarding the other regulatory criteria or the director's 
questionable determination that the beneficiary meets 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
While the petitioner has overcome the director's bases of denial, however, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 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 bc in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher leaming 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 leaming 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for a tern 
of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily have an 
expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner did not provide the nontechnical description of the job for the proposed 
employment. Rather, the petitioner submitted a cover letter that described the beneficiary's duties but does not 
h 
a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, asserts that the beneficiary's article 
on synt esizing texture from examples has been cited more than 50 times according to "Citeseer." A review - 
of www.citeseer.ist.psu.edu confirms that this article has now been cited 88 times. 
WAC 03 098 53467 
Page 6 
offer the beneficiary a permanent job or indicate that such an offer had been extended. The petitioner has not 
submitted the orignal job offer letter or the contract under which the beneficiary was working at the time of 
filing. 
The regulations require an offer of employment from the petitioner to the beneficiary setting forth the title, terms 
and conditions of the position offered. We note that the permanent job offer must have been issued prior to the 
date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Cornrn. 1971). 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded for consideration of whether, as of the date of filing, the petitioner had 
made a legally binding permanent job offer to the beneficiary. As always in these proceedings, the burden of 
proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse to the 
petitioner, is to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.