sustained EB-1B Case: Electrical Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
pmt cltprly unwammtsd 
iavmion of gasoml pi- 
PWC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
I ,I r 
'd: )# 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 4 2007 
LIN 06 251 53285 
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)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is a semiconductor manufacturer. 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. 
fj 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
senior development engineer. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for the category of outstanding 
professor or researcher and did not have the necessary three years of experience. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence, most of which was already part of the 
record of proceeding. While not all of counsel's assertions are persuasive, we find that the director did 
not give sufficient weight to the beneficiary's publication record. Moreover, while the petitioner could 
have provided more comprehensive documentation of the beneficiary's more than three years of 
experience, the director failed to consider all of the evidence that was submitted. 
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 
(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 
Page 3 
(ID) 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. 5 204.5(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 and/or 
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 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 andlor research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien . . .. 
This petition was filed on August 28, 2006, to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of electrical engineering. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at 
least three years of research experience in this field as of that date. The beneficiary received his Ph.D. 
in the applied sciences from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium on May 3 1, 1999. The 
beneficiary indicates on his curriculum vitae that he has worked in research consistently since that time, 
which would amount to seven years. Inexplicably, the petitioner does not rely on this postdoctoral 
experience and has not submitted the required evidence to document this experience, letters from those 
employers affirming the experience. Instead, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's pre-doctoral 
experience with Samsung and the beneficiary's experience with the Interuniversity Microelectronics 
Center (IMEC) in Belgium, gained mostly while the beneficiary pursued his Ph.D. The petitioner has 
documented the beneficiary's employment for Samsung from 1988 through 1992 and lus experience 
with IMEC from 1994 through 1999. The beneficiary also had 23 months of experience with the 
petitioner as of the date of filing. 
The director considered only the beneficiary's employment with IMEC and concluded that, because the 
work was conducted while the beneficiary was pursuing a degree and had not been demonstrated as 
outstanding, it could not be considered. Once again, rather than document the beneficiary's seven years 
of purported research experience after receiving his Ph.D., counsel focuses on the beneficiary's 
experience with Samsung and IMEC, asserting that the beneficiary's work for IMEC was outstanding. 
Whether the beneficiary is recognized as outstanding and whether he has the necessary experience are 
separate inquiries unless the experience is gained while pursuing an advanced degree. Thus, the 
director's conclusion that the beneficiary lacks the necessary three years of experience is 
understandable given the petitioner's repeated failure to properly document the beneficiary's seven 
years of postdoctoral experience. That said, the petitioner did document that the beneficiary had 23 
months of postdoctoral experience with the petitioner and that the beneficiary had several years of pre- 
doctoral experience and experience while pursuing his Ph.D. His most cited article was authored while 
a Ph.D. student and his Ph.D. work is included in the work discussed by the beneficiary's references. 
Thus, we withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
has the necessary three years of experience. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states 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 regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the beneficiary must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the 
controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish intemational recognition, and any evidence 
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 
More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. Employment Based Inl~nigvants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 
199l)(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The director concluded that the beneficiary had 
made original scientific or scholarly research contributions to his academic field pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). Thus, while not all of counsel's assertions on appeal are 
persuasive, the petitioner need only demonstrate that the beneficiary meets one more criterion. We find 
that the petitioner has also demonstrated that the beneficiary has authored scholarly books or articles (in 
scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored eight articles, including an invited 
paper, and had presented his work at several conferences. While we concur with the director that the 
international exposure inherent to publication is not necessarily indicative of international recognition 
as outstanding, it remains that the petitioner submitted evidence that at least two of the beneficiary's 
articles have been well cited. 
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 intemational 
recognition as an outstanding researcher in electrical engineering. Specifically, the record indicates that 
the beneficiary meets 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.