sustained EB-1B Case: Medical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
l&&F&fS'*-- 7- - - :-:> :*; ?leted ta 
pvag La-;; . A". c~xT~B~~O U. S. Citizenship 
&don of Bri~~2- and Immigration 
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. 8 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. 
u hobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 a medical device 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. 9 
11530>)(1)(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. The director also concluded 
that the petitioner had not demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage. 
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 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 
(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. 
This petition was filed on August 22, 2003. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet these criteria must 
therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. We find that the evidence presented by the 
petitioner satisfies the following two criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic or scholarly research contributions to the academic$eld. 
The petitioner submitted several witness letters in support of the petition. We cite representative examples 
here. 
Professor of Clinical Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of 
e lcine, states: 
Although [the beneficiary's] publications in scientific journals are significant in themselves for their 
scientific value, it goes beyond that by providing guidance for other researchers to direct their research 
in the right direction. For example, until [the beneficiary's] research was published on the subject, 
doctors and researchers had no reliable information on the effect of insulin analogues (insulin-like 
chemicals) on the treatment of diabetes in pregnant women. I cannot think of anything more significant 
than providing the right information for others to follow. 
[The beneficiary] has already established her reputation on the international level, especially in the field 
of diabetes and pregnancy. 
There are two major approaches in the management of gestational diabetes. Medical nutrition therapy 
and insulin therapy. Appropriate management of diabetes during pregnancy can significantly reduce 
the maternal as well as neonatal complications and reduced long term complication that are visible in 
the pediatric population born out of poorly controlled diabetic pregnancies. American Journal of 
Perinatology published . . . outstanding findings that [the beneficiary] has discovered evaluating 
different types of meals and postprandial glucose response to them. This findings [sic] will reduce the 
necessity of intensive insulin therapy in those patient [sic] managed by original meal composition 
suggested by [the beneficiary]. 
[The beneficiary's] recent publication in . . . Diabetes Care is perceived as the publication of the 
highest scientific value. Diabetes Care manuscript was the only randomized study in the world to 
assess the safety and efficacy of the new rapid action insulin treatment for the gestational diabetics and 
therefore, currently serves as the therapy guidelines. 
The record contains evidence showing that this article has been cited numerous times by independent 
researchers. Independent citations (such as those contained in the record) show that other researchers have 
been influenced by the beneficiary's work and are familiar with it. 
professor and Chair, Department of Pathology of Pregnancy, University of Belgrade, 
states: "[The beneficiary] has already made a large number of significant, original contributions over a wide 
range of topics, from metabolic alterations of pregnancy, to the breakthrough in nutritional medical 
management of insulin impaired or resistant states." 
Professor of Medicine, University of Berlin, states: 
- 
m Page 4 
I have known [the beneficiary's] work for several years. She has achieved international recognition in 
the field of diabetes specifically working on the pregnancy complicated by various forms of diabetes . . 
. . [The beneficiary's] work is well published in the pear [sic] reviewed journals and serves as the 
guidelines, especially when the medical nutrition therapy is recommended for the management of 
gestational diabetes. 
In this case, the evidence indicates that the beneficiary's contributions are important not only to the research 
institutions where she has worked, but also throughout the greater field. Medical experts from around the 
world have acknowledged the value of the beneficiary's work and that her contributions have attracted 
international recognition. Therefore, we find that the petitioner's evidence satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic$eld. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Diabetes Care, Diabetologia, and Diabetes. Also submitted was a citation index showing that the 
beneficiary's published articles have garnered numerous independent citations. When judging the influence 
and impact that the beneficiary's published work has had, the very act of publication is not as reliable a gauge 
as is the citation history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it 
is difficult to conclude that a published article is important or influential if there is little evidence that other 
researchers have relied upon the beneficiary's findings. In the present matter, the significant number of 
citations of the beneficiary's published articles demonstrates widespread international interest in, and reliance 
on, her work. These citations show that many other researchers have acknowledged the beneficiary's 
influence and found her work to be significant. 
In ths 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. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the petitioner has adequately demonstrated its ability to pay 
the beneficiary's wage as indicated under Part 6 of the 1-140 petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) states, in pertinent part: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment-based 
immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be accompanied by evidence that the 
prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner must 
demonstrate this ability at the time the priority date is established and continuing until the beneficiary 
obtains lawhl permanent residence. 
In determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of $185,000 per year, Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) may examine whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary the 
proffered wage at the time the priority date was established. If the petitioner establishes by documentary 
evidence that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, the evidence 
Page 5 
will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. In the present case, 
the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2003 reflecting a salary of 
$77,956.54. Information in the record indicates that the beneficiary did not commence employment with the 
petitioner until August 2003. Therefore, after annualizing the amount paid to the beneficiary from August 
2003 through December 3 1,2003, it is reasonable to conclude that the petitioner has adequately demonstrated 
its ability to pay the proffered wage. 
In this matter, we find that 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. 1361. 
The petitioner has sustained that bwden. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.