sustained EB-1B Case: Environmental Science

Identill in!; drt.: t'.dctr3 I;) 
prevent d~.r) J u~warmlted 
bvmipa of pcnoaoll privacy 
PUBlI11C COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W ., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 100 5401 2 Office: CALlFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 2 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Outstanding Professor or Researcher pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Fj 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 ofice. 
j:+ Robert P. Wiernann, Director 
/ Administrative Appeals Ofice 
WAC 03 100 54012 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be sustained, and the 
petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is an environmental, health, and safety sohare systems development company. It seeks to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B), as an outstanding professor or 
researcher. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as an "Environmental Research Scientist." The 
director found that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as 
outstanding in his academic field. 
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 internationatl:~ 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 
(111) 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)(i) outlines six criteria, at least two of which the beneficiary must satisfy 
in order to establish the international recognition necessary to qualify for classification as an outstanding 
professor or researcher. The director concluded that the beneficiary had met the criterion pertaining to the 
authorship of scholarly books or articles. We agree with the director's finding, and find that, based on 
additional evidence presenied on appeal, the beneficiary also satisfies the following criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individuullj, or on a panel, as the judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied rccadernicfilo! 
WAC 03 100 54012 
Page 3 
The petitioner originally submitted a letter fronow Executive Director, Integrated 
Research and Action for Development, an Indian advanced research institute, and formerly a Senior Professor 
at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research. She states: 
In my capacity as the Chairperson of the EERC [Environmental Economic Research Committee], I 
invited [the beneficiary] as a subject expert in ecology and environmental economics to help us edit 
about 57 completed final reports and their executive summaries of EERC projects. His grasp of 
environmental economics had turned him into one of the leading proponents of application of 
environmental economics . . . . 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional evidence detailing the beneficiary's participation in the EERC 
project. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also included evidence indicating that the beneficiary was an "editor" of 
at least two published reports issued by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Documentation 
provided on appeal indicates that the BNHS is the "largest non-government organization in the Indian 
subcontinent engaged in nature conservation research." 
In this case, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, we find that 
the evidence presented satisfies at least two of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i). Therefore, 
the petitioner has overcome the stated grounds for denial and thereby established that the beneficiary qualifies 
under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act as an outstanding researcher. The burden of proof in visa petition 
proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.