sustained EB-1B Case: Electrical Engineering

<C / , - 
"y ,, , ;;.:;. F\ ?@;, ; : ; - .* . ~ .. -. 
-a ..~ * -~-.- 4>,,<u-dr, ;:.&;a;,;2 c:';;:~ 3.c ,-' 5,- 
',;; *;,, ,$d' 
I -, ; ; y $>!,?: * f+f~: 6- a"6*>:;:?, ( , 7 a ,?- , , 
- ., ~ %, L- -,..> %:F-*tbA %,, ;- i,:, ,, ?;;>:-,-, i*>w'?,T-',:- .*.. .uJl,l**, 
;j 4 1 ~~~>~j~$) , . (& *$f& ;s43?q.- -.. 
& k,,-3: t " t>! '?;*-,? 
'J ' h)' 
W.S. Departmeat of Homeland Security 
26 Mass. Ave., N.W , b. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
Ub S. Citizenship 
md Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
K- P. 
- Office: CALEORNlA SERVICE CENTER Date: 5~: 3 -,L, 
WAC 04 109 51981 
PETITION: hnmiganmt Petit~on for Alien Worker as Octsta~dang Professor or Resezrcher Pursuant to 
Sectlon 203(b)(l)(B) of the 1mm1ga"tlon and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 B 153(b)(l)(B) 
OW BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This as the dec~sion of the Admm:strat~ve Appeals Office m your case. All documents have been cetsarmed to 
the office that oraginally decided your case. Any f~rther lnquzry m~st be made to that ofice, 
d' < 
,, Woberrt P. ~<ehann. Director 
Admm~strative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the petition will 
be approved. 
The petitioner is a semiconductor manufacturer. It seeks classification of the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 1,migration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1153(b)(B)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a manager 
of architecture and design.' 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. 
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 En 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 positioil) 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 
(m> 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 Beast 3 persons h4B-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 reseachea must be 
accompanied by: 
(il) 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 
1 The job description provided sufficiently establishes that this is a research position. 
/j be acceptable ifthe alien has acquired the degree, and if the teaching duties were such 
she had f~ll responsibility for the class taught or if the research conducted towal-d the 
s been recognized with the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
earch experience shall be in the form of ietter(s) from former or cunent eanpIoyer(s) 
include :he name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
nned by the alien. 
o be considered in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary's scientific accomplishents are 
eco~ized as those of an outstanding researcher in his field. The regulation at 8 C.F.W. 
tates that a petition for an outstarding professor or :researcher must be accompanied by 
he professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field 
petition." Octstaading professors znd researchers should stand apart in the academic 
gh eminence and distinctio~ based on international recognition. The regulation at issue 
o be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. 
(199 1). The petitioner mst meet at least two of six stated criteria. The petitioner meets the 
lation of the alien's membersh@ in associations in the academic $el$ which require 
g achievements oftheir members 
subm~tted ewdence that the hstltute of Electrical and EBectromcs Engmeers (EEE) elected the 
he grade of fellow in 1995, effectwe Jznuary 1, 1996, w~th the fol9owmg cltataon: 
dvancement of the state of the art in data and voice communic~tstion systems and 
7xship that contribute2 to the adoption of asyncf~onous transfey mode switching by 
es networking ~ndustry. 
ested ev~ite~ce regard~rig the mmmum requ~rennents for mezbwshp. h response, the 
d matenals from EEE's website mdicatmg that EEE fellowship "1s conferred by the Board 
a person with an extraordinary record of accomphskments m 2ny of the EEE fields of 
matenals also ind~cate that EEE issues a cntat~on to new feYows "desenbmg tI-ienr 
Flnally, the total num3e: of fellows selected m one year may not exceed one-tenth of the 
oncluded t3at the petntzoner had not establashed the number of menbers, the beneficnaay's "rank" 
ther members, the status of the assocnatlon wathn the com~nn@ or "any othe~ condnt~ons or 
l' membershap." The d~rector concluded that the petatloner had not establrshed that EEE was 
fess~onal assoc~akon. 
On appea:, ty petitioner s~bbnutted add~tional materials from EEE7s website. These materials provide: 
/I 
e of Fellow recognizes un~sual dnsiinctnon In the ?rofess~on and shall be conferred 
nv~tataon of the Board of D~rectors upon a person of outstanding and extraordlnary 
tions acd experience m EEE-designated Selds, and w3o hzs made ~mpor'.ant 
1 contnbutlons to one or more of these fields. 
Page 4 
The materials fiu-tlner lndlcate that self-normnation IS not permitted and that nomnnatlons should be s~npported 
wath a "tangable" record of outstandmg accompl~slunents. JVhere petents are s~bmit:ed as part of the "tangnbTe7' 
record, the nom~nator must "state engnneenng s~gnaficance of atems." Regardang select~on: 
The EEE and its member societaes cooperate eack year to select a sma9 go~p of outstandang 
professaonals for recognltlon as EEE Fellows. A senm EEE member who has achieved 
drst~nct:o~ in hs or her field can be xamed an EEE Fe:low only after being nomnated for the 
honor. A11 s-dch norn~nataons undergo ngorous revlew before the EEE Board of Governors 
votes to bestow the prestlgous rank of feyow. 
Typically, nominees must already be senior medess. The nominees are evaluated as fo'oglows: 
3 hd~vldual coxtrabut~ons as an engneer or scaentrst, tech~cal leader, or educator; 
0 Technrcal evaluation Sy one EEE socnety or comcnl; 
o Tangble and verifiable evndence of teck-nacal accompl~shent, such as techcal 
publicat~ons, patents, reports, publashed product descnpt~ons andor semces, as Basted or, 
tne nomanatron fom; 
0 Confidentla1 op~nnons of referrers who can attest to the nominee's work, 
0 EEE and non-EEE professnonal actlvlbles, anclud~rg awards, semces, 2nd offices heid, 
comittee membershnps, and the We; and 
o Total years m prof- dxslon. 
The statistics provided reflect that as of March 2002, there were 392,500 members in all grades, and only 5,746 
fe:Bows. h 4999, EEE elected only 43.6 percent of the educatioc nominees and 40.1 percent of the mndustry 
nominations. 
Wile EEE may generally be a nonexchsiwe professional association, the petitioner has established that the 
grade of fellow as a membership that does require outstanding achievements. Thus, we find that the beneficiary 
does meet this cntaion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's orip.nal scientiJic or scholarly research contributions to the academic field 
The pet~t~orer :zeEies on reference letters and the beneficlaay's patents as evndence to meet tk~s crtenon. The 
d~rector concluded that the letters from ~0l~ab~r~tors could not de:xor,strate that t3e bbeefic~ary's work as 
recogmzed beyond hrs clrcle of colleagues and that the c~tatlons demorstrated only that the beneficiary's work IS 
useful. On appeal, co~nsel revlews the reference letters and asserts that they are fiorn Peadnng authont~es m the 
field and "shwald be glven the sar.e welght as letters wntt-hen by amelated persons." The petltlone~ sub:mts two 
new Belters and evldence that the beneficaary has authored 26 patents whach have been cated m other paterts 2 
tot& of 3 19 tnmes, with several of the beneficnary's patents receawng at least 40 cntations each and Isttle, af my, 
overla?. 
Obvnously, the petltlmer cannot sat~s@ this cntenon samply by l:stnng the beneficiary's past projects, and 
demonstratmg that the beneficraay's work was "ongna;" an that nt c'ld not merely dupl~cate prior resea~ch 
Research work tat 1s unong~nal would be ~inhkely to secure :he 3ene5clary a master's degree, jet alone 
classrficat~on as an outstaridnng researcher. Because the go& oof the regulatory cntma IS to demonstrate that the 
Seneficaary has won ~nternataonal recognitnon as an outstandlng researcher, nt stands to reason that the 
beneficlay's ~esearch contnbut~ons have won comparable aecognat~m. To ague that all ongnal research IS, by 
definntion? "outstmdmg" IS to weaken that adject~ve >eyor,d any useful meanang, and to presume that most 
research IS "unongnaB." 
h a similar vein, the evidence that the beneficiary holds several patents for his inventions establishes that he is a 
prolific inventor, but the very existence of the patents does not show th~t the beneficiary's inven"' ~lons are more 
significant than those of others in his field. To establish the significance of the beneficiary's work, we turn to 
experts in his field, whose letters we discuss "oelow, and the citations. 
B. Claude Galand, D~recto~ of Strategy and kch~tect.ae at AT&T Labs, ~nd~cates that he worked closely w~lh 
the benefic~a~ on the archntectwe of the BM Nways 2220 ATM swntch that feat~red two technoIog~caP 
breakthroughs. SpecnficalBy, the ATM sw~tch incorporated the first Network Processor ard the Pnma switch. 
&. Garland then sumanzes the beneficiary's career. Spec~fically, m the 1970's, the beneficlaw designed ''16 
and 32 bat microprocessors In the BM Advaxced System Development Diwisnon." The beneficnary then 
"cap:ahzed on thns expertise to make a real breakthough nn des~gnang the first mdus'cq D:gatal Sagpal 
Processor." h the 19807s, the Seneficiaay led "the kch~tectwe of the most advanced, at the tnme, vo~celdatz 
FBX." B. Garland continues: 
Lrntegrati~g Voice and Data has always been [the beneficiary's] long-term objective, 
culminating in the early 19907s, with the kchitecba-e of the first true broadband switch, 
supporting a rich mix of multimedia traffic in both cell and packet form. This project, linking 
the most expert researchers at the time, enabled [the beneficiary] to create and support major 
new technologcal breakt'moughs. One of them, the first Network Processor, while viewed with 
skepticism at the time, is nowadays an indusiny flagship initiative. hother one, developed in 
conjunction with Research, the Prima switch, is the true leader in today's strategc indushy. 
The other letters submitted nnntiaily prov~de simlar mfonnatnon. On appeal, the petntnoner s~bn~ts two new 
Betters. Jeffrey Jafk, President of Bell Labs Resea~ch and Advanced Techolog~es for Lucent Techolognes, 
asserts that the benefac~ary IS a "pnoneer9' of volce, data and wdeo cormvergences. Dr. Phrlap Plans, Head of the 
Computer Engmeenng Program and Seattle Pacafic Un~ver~ty, 2sserts that, baseci on a revnew of the 
beneficnary's credentrals, he has "been at the forefront of innovatnon 12 the field of Computer Eng~neenng ad 
has made major ongnal contnbutlons to that 5eld " 
Whn1e ietters from colleagues are ~mportant :n expiannmg the petitaoner's role nn varnous projects and do carny 
evndent~ary wenght, they cannot, by themselves, establ~sk the petltlocer's zecogaantion Seyond h~s  mediate 
cnrcle of coll,eag~es. In addntion, letters from ladependent references who were prev~ously aware of the 
petataoner thorngh has reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than ietters from 
nndependent refeye~ces who were not prev~ously aware of the petitloner and are merery respondlrg to a 
sol~citataon to Yevaew the get~tloner's c~rracdan vitae ad work and prov~de an oplnlon base2 solely on th~s 
revlew. 
As the above letters are from the beneficiary's ~mednate clrcle of colleagues and nndependent experts who do 
not appear to have had any pnor knowledge of the beneficiary or hss work prior to being requested to provide a 
Page 6 
ref'erence, they camoh, by themselves, establish the benefic~ary's ~nternat~omal recognr:~on. Claiias that the 
benefic~ary's ivent~ons have been pioneering shouid be verifiable tb~ough ewdence beyond the afiestat:o~s of 
the be~eficiary's colleagues. h ths matter, the petatimer has submitted such evndence. The record reflects tkat 
beneficlay's patents have been frequently referenced m other patents. The record does cot estabhsh the 
sngnaficance of such references m general or how many references are cons~dered s~gnaficant m the 
teleco~~munrcat~ons b~siness. For exanr~le, the letter wnhers do not snd~czte how often thew own patents have 
been cited. %'hat sad, we are sat~sfaed that 3 19 scch catations support the clams m the iaene5caary7s reference 
Zetas atkeskng to h~s ~nternat~onal recognit~on. 
As we conclude that the beneficiary meets the two criteria discussed above, we xed no";discuss counsel's far 
less ~ersraasive assertions relating to other criteria. 
The record nndicates that the beneficlay meets at least two of the SIX cntma B~sted at 8 8.F.R. 204.5(1)(3)(1). 
Based on tke evnderrce submnb-ted, at 1s concluded that the pehtloner has establ~shed that the beneficmy qualnfies 
under sect~on 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act as an outstand~ng researcher. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petationer. Sectlon 291 of :he Act, 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1361. The pet~tioner has met that buden. According?y, the appeal wi". be sustained and the pe'lation wwlll be 
appmved. 
OmER: The appeal is sustained and the pet~tion is approved