sustained EB-1B Case: Pharmaceutical Science

i&mti@ie data deleted to 
pemt skerly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Ofice: NEBRASKA SER\'ICE CENTER Date: AUG 3 0 M07 
LIN 04 253 51624 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien \~Turlter as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigl ation and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals (.Iffice in your case. ,411 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry inusr be made to that office. 
Robert ~.-~iernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Senrice Center, denied the employment based immigrant visa 
petition and reaffirmed the decision on motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is a pharmaceuticals and healthcare company. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a principal scientist. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an 
outstanding professor or researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. Some of counsel's assertions are not persuasive. For example, the 
director's assertion that the petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility as of the filing date 
of the petition is legally sound. See 8 C.F.R. tj 1 03.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg. Comm. 1971). Counsel cites no authorit:? to support his assertion that this principle should not 
apply in cases involving procedural delays. Moreover, we also find much of the director's analysis 
of the evidence to be legally and factually sound. Nevertheless, the petitioner need only demonstrate 
that the beneficiary meets two of the six regulatory criteria. For the reasons discussed below, we find 
that the director failed to give sufficil:nt weight to the evidence submitted to meet the criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D),(F) (relating to judging the work of others and scholarly articles). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent pan., that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be rnade available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the foll(.xving subp; ragraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Out standing professors aad researchsrs. -- .4n alien is described in this subparagraph 
if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized in ternationally 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 positL)il (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution uf 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 coinparable 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 
hll-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an aeaclernic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) 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 wili only be acccptabli. if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching a~-id'or research experience shall be in the form of 
letter@) from current or fonner employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific descriplion of the duties perfoimed by the alien. 
The sole issue to be considered in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary's scientific 
accomplishments are intemationally recognized as those of an outstanding researcher in his field. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states thLii a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by "[e]vidence that the pi-ofessor or researcher is recognized intemationally as 
outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." Outstanding prolessors and researchers 
should stand apart in the acadenlic coin~nus~ity through (eminence and distinction based on 
international recognition. The regular ion at iss~~e provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a 
professor or researcher is deemecl o1.ltstanding. 17mploymerzt-B~rscd Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30705 (proposed July 5, 199l)(enacted 56 Feil. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary meets at least two of the six criteria stated at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
The following criteria are met: 
Evidence ofthe alien k pal-ticipcrlion, either individuallv or on a panel, as the judge ofthe work 
ofothers in the same OP LIIZ nilicd acadenzic,,ti:~ld 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that the beneficiary serves as a member of the editorial board 
for The International Journal of Ph(iltr,.r,zircy Eril,catio~z and has reviewed manuscripts and abstracts for 
other journals and conferences, including as the Abstract Screening Chair for the 2002 annual meeting 
of the American Association of Phar~naceutical IScientist s. 
The director acknowledged that the beneficiary serves as a member of the editorial board for The 
International Journal of Pharmacy Edcrcation but concluded that peer review is routine in the field. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that peer review shoultf serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
The evidence submitted to meet a given cri~c~ion must be indicative of or at least consistent with 
intemational recognition as outstanding if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. Moreover, as 
stated above, the regulatory critcria are to be wed in e~~uluating whether an alien enjoys international 
recognition as outstanding; evidence that simply relates to a given criterion is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. 
We concur with the dircctor that peer-review is uoutine in the ficld and, thus, usually has limited value 
in demonstrating the reviewer's intcrn;ition;il rc:.cognition as outstanding. Nevertheless, the director's 
- - - 
te the beneficialy's editorial pczltbon with a peer-reviewer is not persuasive. - 
Editor of The I~ztztcr-rintionnl Jo : i:*nrrl of' Pharmacy Education, expressly states that the 
beneficiary provides policy guidance in add~tioii to reviewing manuscripts. We are persuaded that = 
has established that the beneficiay is a regular rnernber of the editorial board, and not 
simply one of the journal's numerous peer-reviewers. 
In light of the above, we are satisfied that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alic>n',v nuthor.sl~ip of scholctr-lv books or trrtic1e.s (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) irz the rrlzudemic, ficlil 
The director acknowledged that the b~neficial-.~ had authored several articles and book chapters but 
concluded that the petitioner had ilot established the significance of the beneficiary's publication 
record. On appeal, counsel ivrrectly notes :hat the director failed to consider the citation reports 
submitted initially. The record contains. evjdcrlce that the beneficiary has been well cited. We are 
satisfied that the beneficiary's publication record is sufficient1 y indicative of international recognition to 
meet this criterion. 
Upon carefil consideratian of the ividence oft~red with the initial petition, and later on appeal, we 
conclude that the petitioner has satisfactor;iy ~stablished that the beneficiary enjoys intemational 
recognition as outstanding within the pharn~~c~utical research field. The petitioner has overcome the 
objections set forth in the director's notice of denial, and thereby re~r~oved every stated obstacle to the 
approval of the petition. 
The record indicates that the btnr!iciaty n1ec:s at least two of the six criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(i)(3)(i). Based on the evidence submitted. it is concluded that the petitioner has established that 
the beneficiary qualifies under section 203(b)(l)(H) of the Act as an outstanding researcher. 
Page 5 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner hes met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained and the 
petition will be approved. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is smtaincd and the petition is approved.