sustained EB-1B Case: Medical Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 14274078 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 27, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a supplier of medical electronics, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the field ofl I See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Director 
overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that 
the Beneficiary qualifies under the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically , section 203(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher 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 [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a pet1t10ner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary received his Ph.D. inl I (2009) from University! I in the United 
Kingdom and Master of En ineerin d~e-re_e_2_0_0_4_fr_o~m University! I in Spain. He is currently 
employed as a Staff Scientist in the Petitioner's Healthcare 
Division at its research facility located i Tennessee. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary criteria, thus 
satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not establish the 
requisite international recognition in his field. Upon review, we agree with the Director that the 
evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, and authorship of scholarly articles. As he 
therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the evidence of record when 
conducting the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher or professor's accomplishments and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the 
evidence 2, that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to show that he has been internationally 
recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the evidence shows the Beneficiary "has international recognition 
for his outstanding achievements in the field of I I' It contends that the 
Beneficiary's peer review work for respected journals, chairing of multiple conference sessions, 
research contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, and citations to those articles by others in the 
1 USCTS has confirmed the applicability of this two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to 
demonstrate eligibility for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.3(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
field demonstrate his international recognition in the field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the Petitioner that it has demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary has peer reviewed numerous articles for Journal of Nuclear 
Medicine, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 
IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Science, Medical Physics, and Neuroimage. In 
addition, he served as session chair for the I I and 
I lin 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Petitioner also submitted documentation 
showing that the Beneficiary's peer review service is indicative of his international recognition as a 
researcher. For example, the Petitioner provided impact factor rankings and other evidence reflecting 
the international stature of the aforementioned journals. Furthermore, the record includes a letter from 
a senior editor for Neuroimage stating that "[p Jeer reviewers for the journal are selected based on 
proven expertise and a track record in the field." Likewise, the Petitioner provided letters from the 
editorial staff of Medical Physics indicating that its reviewers are chosen based on their subject matter 
expertise and stature in the field. The Beneficiary's peer review of a significant number of articles for 
distinguished international journals and participation as a chair for multiple sessions of a reputable 
conference is consistent with being recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic area. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner presented documentation showing that the Beneficiary has authored a 
substantial number of articles in journals with international circulation, including Brain, European 
Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Neuroimage, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors 
and Associated Equipment, Physics in Medicine & Biology, and Biological Psychiatry. In addition, the 
record contains evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's scholarly articles have garnered an 
extensive number of citations internationally, many of which apply and build upon his work. 3 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted reference letters from experts in the field, detailing the 
Beneficiary's specific contributions and explaining how those contributions are 1m ortant to the 
academic field. For instance, regarding the Beneficiary's work involvinot----~---~ system 
matrices for clinical! ll I professor of radiology at University, stated 
that the Beneficiary "exploited rotational and specular symmetries in th ______ ....., and specular 
symmetries J I .... These c lindrical s mmetries re resent a ma·or achievement in the 
field since they can be escalated to~--------~-----------~--~ 
I I' I I further indicated that the Beneficiary's work has "been incorporated into 
I !products and utilized in clinical applications." 
With resP.ect to the Beneficiary's work relating to the development ofL..I __ .,..--..... l~fo=r'--idetecting mental 
disorders! I professor of medical h sics at Universit !asserted that the 
Beneficiary devised "a novel method to correct for and ex lained that this 
"pioneering method, ba;:.:.:s~e.::d___:,,:o.:.:n-====::::;--------~~~----------------' 
sequences, calculates th _L.._ ____ ...,--~i=n~l~0~s~e~c~o=n=d=s ....,compared to the other ... methods that require 
30-60 minutes and achieves the sam accuracy comparable to the most advanced 
3 The Petitioner provided information from Google Scholar showing hundreds of citations to the Beneficiary's published 
work along with copies of articles that cited to his work. A review of these articles shows the significance of the 
Beneficiary's research and demonstrates that it has widely impacted the field. 
3 
available methods forl !correction." I I farther stated that Beneficiary's 
work "is widely recognized as an original scientific development of major significance to the field 
because he has produced high I 1 ,I in I I disease and I I in a 
fraction of the time compared to other state-of-the-art methods including templates, databases, and 
neural networks." 
While we need not accept unsubstantiated claims, the documentation discussed above and other 
corroborating evidence of record, supports the aforementioned references' statements concerning the 
Beneficiary's original research contributions and his international recognition in the academic field. 
After review of the totality of the evidence in the record, which shows the numerous occasions on 
which the Beneficiary has been relied upon as an expert peer reviewer for highly regarded journals, 
his participation as a chair for multiple sessions of a reputable conference, the reach and impact of the 
Beneficiary's research in the~ _____ _.field, and the recognition that he has received as a result 
of this work, we conclude that it establishes that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his 
field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence which establishes that the Beneficiary meets the requisite two 
evidentiary criteria and is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in his academic field. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4