sustained EB-1B Case: Crop Physiology

MATTER OF M-S-U-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 10,2015 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a state university, seeks to classifY the Beneficiary as an outstanding researcher. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). The Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained. 
The Petitioner seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary as an Assistant Professor of Crop 
Physiology. The Director determined the Petitioner satisfied the initial requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i), but that the Beneficiary had not attained the level of achievement required of 
an outstanding researcher. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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 m 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--
Matter of M-S-U-
(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. 
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 material demonstrating that a beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in her academic field. To do this, a petitioner must submit evidence that 
satisfies at least two of six listed regulatory criteria. However, the submission of evidence relating to 
at least two criteria does not, in and of itself, show eligibility for this classification. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that we evaluate "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true."). If a petitioner files the 
necessary initial documentation, we then consider the totality of the evidence in a final merits 
decision to determine whether the petitioner has established eligibility.' 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary has at least three years of experience in teaching or 
research in her academic area, and that she seeks to enter the United States for a tenure-track position 
within a university. See § § 203(B)(l )(b )(ii) & (iii) of the Act. The Petitioner provided evidence that the 
Beneficiary has been conducting post-doctoral research in her field since 2009, giving her well over the 
required three years. In addition the Petitioner currently employs the Beneficiary as a tenure-track 
Assistant Professor of Crop Physiology. The only issue on appeal is therefore whether the Beneficiary 
is recognized internationally as outstanding in her specific academic area, as required by section 
203(B)(l)(b)(i) of the Act. 
1 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and, if it satisfying the required number of criteria, then considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, 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, 4, (December 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-l.pdf (stating that the 
approach in Kazarian should apply equally to petitions for outstanding professors or researchers and to petitions for 
aliens of exceptional ability). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S-U-
The Petitioner meets the following evidentiary criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel , as the judge qf 
the work of others in the same or an allied academic field. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence that satisfies this criterion. The 
documentation provided shows the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an allied field, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Specifically, the Beneficiary 
served as a peer-reviewer for eight scientific journals, and as one of nine jurors at a graduate student 
poster presentation at the 2012 Accordingly, the Petitioner has met this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals 
with international circulation) in the academic field. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The documentation provided 
shows the Beneficiary authored scholarly books or articles in scholarly journals with international 
circulation in the academic field, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Accordingly , the 
Petitioner has met this criterion. 
B. Summary 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has submitted sufficient initial evidence to meet two of the 
regulatory criteria, as required for this classification. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied two of the six evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i) and we agree? The next step is a final merits determination that considers whether the 
record shows the Beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in her academic area. Section 
203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act. In making this determination, we consider all relevant and probative 
evidence as it relates to the assessment. 3 
The Beneficiary began her current position as an Assistant Professor of Crop Physiology at the 
petitioning university in 2014. Prior to this, she worked for a year as Research Assistant Professor at 
the after performing her postdoctoral research there from 2009-2013. 
She earned a Ph.D. in 2008 from and a master's degree iri Gee-information 
2 In his denial , the Director found the Petitioner did not provide evidence of original scientific or scholarly research 
contributions to the academic field pursuant to 8 C.F .R § 204 .5(i)(3)(i)(E) . As the Petitioner has provided the initial 
evidence required for the classification by meeting two other criteria , we will consider the evidence relating to the 
contributions criterion within the final merits determination. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 at 20. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S- U-
Science and Earth Observation in 2002 from the 
received a bachelor's degree in Agriculture from 
in the Netherlands. In 1996, she 
0 
in the Philippines. 
The Beneficiary's research focuses on attempting to understand crop responses to abiotic factors 
(light, temperature, water, nutrients, climate, etc.) in order to help scientists and farmers determine 
how to manage water, nutrients, genetics, and other controllable inputs. The Beneficiary 's more 
recent research has concentrated on soybean plants, with specific findings in the areas of crop-water 
relations and root growth modeling. 
In support of the outstanding nature of the Beneficiary's contributions , 
reference letters from 13 professionals in the field, including 
Australia; 
Associate Professor, 
the Petitioner provided 
Associate Professor, 
Professor, Professor at the petitioning 
university; and the Petitioner 's Interim Head, Department of Research Centers. 
Several of these authors emphasized the importance of her efforts to translate research results into 
actual application for end users. in particular noted the Beneficiary's ability and 
willingness to relay scientific findings to farmers; for example, he noted that the Beneficiary 
conducted demonstration tours to explain her field research and findings to farmers. She also gave 
presentations on nitrogen use and irrigation strategies at the 
annual grower meeting. According to . as a research associate at the 
the Beneficiary helped develop an online tool that utilizes maps, 
weather information , and soybean growth models to forecast a particular plot's soybean growth. The 
program helps detemiine when to apply critical input, such as irrigation, pest control, and fertilizer. 
The program is available free of charge and hundreds of Midwest farmers have signed up to utilize 
its services. 
Each of the letters speaks to the Beneficiary 's research accomplishments, however, the letter from 
in Brazil included the most comprehensive explanation of the international impact of the 
Beneficiary's contributions. stated that he first came to know of the Beneficiary through 
her paper 
0 0 
• According to 
"[t]his paper is stellar because it demonstrated the usefulness of crop simulation models in an actual 
farmer's field and how it can be best utilized by scheduling various crop management given the 
high-quality forecasts of crop growth and development that enables application of specific crop 
management to improve and sustain crop yields." He praised the implementation of SoyWater on 
the web for use by farmers and researchers as follows: "This irrigation management tool [the 
Beneficiary] developed for use in the USA is an inspiration to scientists globally in mending the gap 
between scientific research and practice in an actual condition." further explained that he 
initially contacted the Beneficiary through email to request assistance in measuring the climate 
change impacts on soybean yields in Brazil. He organized a team that simulated the impact of these 
changes using the Beneficiary's outcomes and expertise. He then sent his Brazilian Ph.D. students 
and Postdoctoral scientists to the United States to work with the Beneficiary and other modelers to 
gain knowledge and experience they could apply at home. Finally, referenced the 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S-U-
Beneficiary's more recent work submitted to the on 
soybean yield gaps and water productivity. He affirmed that the concepts and methodologies 
presented in the paper would be extremely useful in Brazil, the world's leading soybean producer 
and exporter. 
In his letter , Australian scientist summarized the contents of a chapter written by the 
Beneficiary and others as "a synthesis of a soybean yield, genetics , and management history and 
modelling of response to changing climate-temperature and C02 over the years." He stated that they 
"were able to quantify the genetic gain and contribution of yield increase with C02 increase due to a 
changing climate ," and noted that he cited this chapter numerous time in his own book, 
The Petitioner provided evidence that the citations to the Beneficiary ' s work have frequently been 
substantive, in addition to being from a global audience. Several articles noted the Beneficiary ' s 
development of a simplified soybean growth model that is easy to use in practice , yet still accurate. 
Many of them included descriptions of the methods used, discussed the findings , or applied her 
techniques. The Beneficiary ' s work while a research associate at the was 
featured through multiple citations in a 2014 review article about genetic improvements of the 
American soybean. An article by South African researchers indicated they used the soil erosion 
classification system created by the Beneficiary. Dutch scientists cited the same work, summarizing 
the scope and results of the Beneficiary's study. A paper from researchers at Brazilian and 
American institutions expanded and built upon the Beneficiary's recommendations , which were also 
noted by researchers in Indonesia. 
In addition, the Beneficiary ' s peer-reviewed experience is sufficiently consistent with a finding that 
she enjoys an international reputation in the field. The a United 
Kingdom-based publication, asked the Beneficiary to peer-review the article, 
due to her 
collaboration on the topic . Similarly, she received an invitation from . 
to review the paper, 
The Petitioner also showed that 
the Beneficiary was personally invited to peer-review other articles for multiple international 
journals , such as 
Submissions in the record also emphasized the Beneficiary's election as the chairperson of the 
"the pre-eminent organization of 
membership." Documentation from the 
the position over professors from 
which is, according to 
agricultural science with an international scope and 
elections indicates that the Beneficiary was voted into 
Modelling section of the 
In this role, the Beneficiary helped organize 
International Annual Meeting in 2014 . 
the Climatology and 
Matter of M-S- U-
The submitted documentation provides concrete examples of the international reach of the 
Beneficiary's work and the high regard she enjoys from researchers in her field throughout the 
world. The letters of recommendation give sufficient explanation regarding the reasoning for the 
opinions expressed, and those opinions are corroborated by other information in the record. When 
considered in its totality, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is recognized 
internationally as an outstanding researcher in her field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation offered in support of a claim of an outstanding researcher must show that the 
Beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in her field. When considered in light of the 
analysis outlined in the Kazarian decision, the Petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence to 
satisfy two evidentiary categories and also to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is an outstanding 
researcher when considered in a final merits decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. § 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). Here, the Petitioner has met that burden. Therefore, the Petitioner has shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofM-S-U-, ID# 14826 (AAO Dec. 10, 2015)