sustained EB-1B Case: Biomicroscopy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19897654 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a research institution, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding researcher. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B) . This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to foreign nationals who are internationally 
recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has achieved recognition at the international level as a researcher in the 
field of Biomicroscopy. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding professor or 
researcher if: 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F) . This, however , is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding 
professor or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the beneficiary has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is currently employed by the Petitioner as an assistant scientist, and was initially hired 
as a postdoctoral researcher in 2017. She earned a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from the 
University in 2016. 
In his decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met all of its requirements for this 
classification, and that the Beneficiary met four of the six evidentiary criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). However, in his final merits determination, he concluded that the evidence 
was not sufficient to show that the Beneficiary had been recognized as outstanding in her field at the 
international level. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director applied an elevated standard 
when reviewing the evidence. After review, we agree that the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary meets at least two of the evidentiary criteria, and will therefore conduct a final merits 
determination. 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has 
been recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic field. Here, the Petitioner has 
offered sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary meets that standard. 
The record primarily focuses on the Beneficiary's work in 
to study I stress, tumor metabolism, and other processes in cells that can 
lead to cancer. As explained by her Ph.D. su ervisor, the Petitioner was part of a 
research project which developed a for the study of cancer, and she used in 
conjunction with this device to study tumor metabolism. The paper reporting the results of this study 
was published in 2016 in the journal Scientific Reports, and the record reflects that it has been cited 
in the published work of hundreds ofresearchers. In further support of the recognition of this work in 
the scientific field, the Petitioner submitted several review articles written by other researchers which 
include extensive discussion of the research completed in this paper. Two of these review articles also 
included figures from the Beneficiary's paper, with one including that figure as one of four 
I I 
Another article, published in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism as al I article and 
written by I I in 2019, focuses exclusively on a different paper co-authored by 
the Beneficiary which was published in Cell Metabolism. The article describes the paper's findings 
professors and researchers. 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 ADJ 1-14, PM-602-0005.1 (Dec. 
22, 2010). 
2 
regarding I disease, and notes that its significance and importance lies in the questions it 
raises concerning the "molecular pathophysiology and potential new clinical treatment options" for 
I It also states that the group "harnessed the power of several innovative and 
complimentary technologies," describing in detail how the group usedl Ito achieve their results. 
Professor I I confirmed these statements in a reference letter, and noted that the team's 
"highly innovative research results" could not have been achieved without the Beneficiary's 
contributions. 
In addition to the discussion and recognition of the Beneficiary's published work noted above, the 
Petitioner also submitted evidence of her publication of several other papers in journals with 
international circulation, including Biomedical Optics Express, Journal of Biomedical Optics, and 
PLoS ONE. The record contains evidence showing that the Beneficiary's scholarly articles have 
garnered an extensive number of citations, and that others researchers have applied and built upon this 
work. The Editor in Chief of the Journal of Biomedical Optics notes that a paper on which the 
Beneficiary was the first author was published in that journal in 2020, and quickly became the most 
viewed article for the journal in that year despite its publication in He further writes that the 
number of citations it received in that short time span placed it in the top 1 % for the journal. 2 
Reference letters from experts in the field which detail the Beneficiary's contributions and their 
im ortance to the field of biomicroscopy were also included in the record. For example, Professor 
of University explains that the Beneficiary's development of a I 
"has shaped subsequent study of and disease" 
and that it is already being used by other groups "to understand the mechanisms of howl I 
stress affects out physiology and leads to various disorders and diseases." She indicates that her own 
research group has built upon the Beneficiary's work, and that she referred to it in a review article 
highlighting "important studies for non-invasive metabolic tissue 
assessments." The evidence of the extensive citations to the Beneficiary's work and other 
corroborating evidence in the record supports Professor! statements, as well as that of 
other experts who submitted reference letters, regarding recognition of her work as outstanding. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary has been very active in her field in other aspects as well. Copies 
of emails demonstrate that she has peer reviewed numerous articles for Scientific Reports and 
Biomedical Optics Express, as well as a small number ofreviews for several other journals. A letter 
from The Optical Society confirms that the Beneficiary has provided a total of 22 peer reviews for 
four of its journals, that she has received its highest reviewer rating "for very useful referee reports," 
and that reviewers are chosen based upon "a proven record in the field for which the article is written." 
She also served as a session chair for two sessions of the _.conference in 2020. A 
letter fromOstates that this is their most well attended event, including more than 8500 virtual 
attendees in that year, and notes that selection as a session chair is considered an honor and an 
indication of recognition within the field. The Beneficiary's service as a reviewer for dozens of 
manuscripts submitted to respected international journals in her field, and participation as a session 
chair for multiple sessions at a reputable conference, supports her recognition at the international level 
2 The evidence shows that at the time the petition was filed, the article had been cited 30 times. As of the writing of this 
decision less than a year later, Google Scholar indicates that it has received 126 citations. While the Petitioner must 
establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the requested classification at the time of filing, we note that this infmmation 
supports the editor's statements regarding the influence of this article and recognition of the Beneficiary's work. 
3 
as an outstanding researcher. In addition, her receipt of the __________ Prize for 
Biological Fluorescence, awarded every three years for research related to a doctoral dissertation, 
deserves mention. While lightly contested and including a relatively small cash prize, it adds to the 
evidence of recognition of her work in the field. 
After review of the totality of the record, including the extensive discussion of the Beneficiary's work 
in multiple articles, the impact of her published research on other researchers in the field of 
biomicroscopy, the numerous occasions in which her expertise has been relied upon by distinguished 
scientific journals, and her participations as a chair for multiple sessions of a reputable conference, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has established that she is internationally recognized as outstanding in her 
field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence showing that the Beneficiary meets the requisite two evidentiary 
criteria and is recognized as outstanding in her academic field at the international level. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4