sustained EB-1B Case: Metallurgy And Materials Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8612089 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a steel manufacturing company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in metallurgy and materials science. 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 did 
not properly conduct the final merits analysis and that the overall record supports the Beneficiary's 
international recognition as an outstanding researcher in the fields of metallurgy and materials science. 
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 petitioner 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.1 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 
recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 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 Beneficia received his Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from University! I 
--~--__.and Master of Science degree in Engineering from Universit~ I 
He is current! lo ed as a "Research Engineer, Product Development" in the Petitioner's 
,__---~~-------' Division" at its j I facility" in 
Indiana. 
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 
evidence2, 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){l)(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that it "provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that [the 
Beneficiary] is recognized internationally as an outstanding researcher." It contends that the Director 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
professors and researchers. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with 
Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual {AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 
20 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
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 
disregarded the Beneficiary's "significant and outstanding achievements in the field of metallurgy and 
materials science," including his development ofl I of steel for military and commercial 
applications, his authorship of scholarly articles that have been widely cited by others in the field, and 
his extensive peer review activity for prestigious engineering journals. 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 Materials Science 
and Engineering: A, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, Journal of Materials 
Engineering and Performance, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, Journal of Alloys and 
Compounds, Materials Characterization, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, and Polymer 
Testing. In addition, he served as an editorial board member for Progress of Electrical and Electronic 
Engineering and Modern Materials Science and Technology. 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 reflecting the 
international stature of the aforementioned journals. Furthermore, the record includes a letter from 
~------------~ of Journal of Materials Research and Technology, asserting 
that "submissions to the journal are peer reviewed by leading scientists of international standing." The 
Petitioner also offered a letter froml lot Metallurgical and Materials 
Transactions A, indicating that "reviewers are selected on the basis of their distinguished publication 
record in the field and for their knowledge of the particular field of expertise for a particular 
manuscript." The Beneficiary's peer review of a significant number of articles for reputable international 
journals 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 Acta Materialia, 
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, Scripta Materialia, Materials Science and 
Engineering: A, Materials Technology, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, Journal of Composite 
Materials, and Journal of Applied Mechanics. 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 important to the 
academic field. For instance, regarding the Beneficiary's work to develop I I I lalloys,I I a researcher atL I Institute in Ireland, 
indicated that the Beneficiary devised an innovative "processing route called ~-------
technique" and formulated a I !alloy that "showed a dramatic improvement in 
I I resistance over conventional I I cou " .----'---....,.. 
further stated that the Beneficiary's work "was instrumental in form,........in ......... a .... n .... e ......... ___ ....,_____J aterial 
for advanced ,..__ _______ ....,applications." Likewise, professor of 
3 The Petitioner provided information from Google Scholar showing hundreds of citations to the Beneficiary's published 
work along with copies of numerous articles that cited to his work. For example, a substantial number of articles cite to his 
paper published in Acta Materialia in 2015. A review of these articles shows the significance of the Beneficiary's research 
and demonstrates that it has widely impacted the field. For instance, the authors of articles in Scientific Reports and 
International Journal of Plasticity elaborate on the importance of his findings relating tol !metallic 
materials. 
3 
materials science and engineering at University asserted that the Beneficiary's I I 
I I concept is an excellent and new approach for~-~------ design of c=J I I materials." In addition,~----~ noted that the 
Beneficiary's work has advanced "the development of superior properties and work I I 
I.--------, I" and that "research groups in various countries are now following this path." 
I professor of mechanical engineering and materials science at the University of 
,,_I ---...-1-st-a-te....,..d that the Beneficiary "has innovated a I I steel for pressurized I I 
applications. This steel exhibits three times higher! I compared to the conventional 
grade by maintaining1 ___ "'l- _ __J" Furthermore, with respect to the Beneficiary's research 
aimed at producin steels for applications,.........,----,----,---,-,--....,........,..---=--Research 
Engineer at the Research Center, explained that the Beneficia[Y has 
contributed to "t e eve opmen O nex generation I steels (referred to a~~----~}" and 
that his work "led to the development of wrought! I plates manufactured in 
the United States." 
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. 
The record also indicates that the Beneficiary received thel I Award from the Association for 
Iron & Steel Technology (AIST) in 2015 tori I annual 
conference.4 After review of the totality of the evidence in the record, which shows the numerous 
occasions on which he has been relied upon as an expert peer reviewer for reputable journals, the reach 
and impact of the Beneficiary's research in metallurgy and materials science, 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. 
111. 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 The Petitioner offered a July 2019 letter frp,..m_l ____ ...,..._ ___ __.lfor Technology Programs at AIST, 
explaining thad I is the steel industry's L I event" and that "nearly 300 papers" were submitted 
for nomination at this international conference. 
4