sustained EB-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 108 53867 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
TNSTRUCTJONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 108 53867 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is now 
before the Associate Commissioner for Examinations on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the petition 
will be approved. 
The petitioner is a research and development laboratory. 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 computer 
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. 
On appeal, the petitioner correctly notes that the director mischaracterized the beneficiary's publication record. 
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) within a university 
or institution of higher education to teach in the academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of higher 
education to conduct research in the area, or 
(LII) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or institute of a private employer, if the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accompIishments in an 
academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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 working on an advanced degree 
will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the teaching duties were such 
WAC 03 108 53867 
Page 3 
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 letta(s) from former or current employer(s) 
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 
intemat~onally recognized as those of an outstanding researcher in his field. Service regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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 director concluded 
that the beneficiary did meet the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D) relating to serving as a 
judge of the work of others. We will not withdraw that finding. Thus, the petitioner need only establish that 
the beneficiary meets one additional criterion. We find that petitioner has established that the beneficiary 
meets the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). That criterion requires evidence of the 
beneficiary's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in 
the academic field. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary had only authored seven articles and that he was not the primary 
author for any of those articles. As noted by the petitioner on appeal, however, the record contains evidence of 
13 articles, six of which list the beneficiary as the sole author. As sole author, the beneficiary was clearly the 
sole contributor to the work reported in those articles. Even the remaining articles contain few authors 
at each author made a notable conmbution Moreover, in a letter submitted on appeam 
member of the Swedish Academy of Sciences and a coauthor, asserts that it is "a long standing 
field numerical analysis to list the authors on publications alphabetically, 
of contribution." The order of authors on the beneficiary's articles supports this assertion. 
states that the beneficiary's "contribution to each of the above projects was absolutely 
In addition, the beneficiary not only presented his work at conferences, but was also one of four invited lecturers 
at the 4' Symposium on Overset Composite Grid and Solution Technology. 
The director also concluded that the record lacked evidence of the significance of the beneficiary's publications. 
The director failed, however, to consider the citations of the beneficiary's work under the scholarly articles 
criterion. The journal rankings provided on appeal reflect that the beneficiary is not in a field where the top 
articles are typically cited hundreds, or even dozens, of times. Given that information, the consistent citation of 
the beneficiary's articles is sufficient to demonstrate their significance in the field. In addition, in a letter 
submitted on appea 
b 
professor at the University of New Mexico who has consulted with Los 
Alamos National La oratory, asserts that his work has benefited "directly from the technique first developed" by 
the beneficiary. 
As we find that the beneficiary meets two criteria, we need not consider the petitioner's less persuasive 
assertions. In summary, 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 as a computer research scientist. The petitioner has overcome the objections set forth in the 
director's notice of denial, and thereby removed every stated obstacle to the approval of the petition. 
WAC 03 108 53867 
Page 4 
The record indicates that the beneficiary meets at least two of the six criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Based on the evidence submitted, it is concluded that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary qualifies 
under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act as an outstanding researcher. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1361. The petitioner has met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained and the petition will be 
approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.