sustained EB-1B Case: Semiconductor Manufacturing

US. Department ofl~omcland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W : Rm. .43042 
Washington, DC 20529 
c:,.: <&-& : - . . .. c. 7: : ?,..m .! %!.G 2ixiF&;;?, ;;s>;>L ?&4x:i;-:, U. S. Citizenship 
I 
.-, . -. :sd: and ~mmigratcon 
; .: .-:*?:@& &--TX-~,\ ,.'n~;;;-I-p;*m>G.',: ,-. u.L, i.. u 
253 *. %;>@$&$ a2- kij p+. ./.3. ,*,Q?; :,;;?: ..>' 
.- 
.< ,A- 
- 
.g' 
#f . - +;. 5. 
,- 3.7, . ,..= v- 
FILE: Office: CALEORIIM SERh71CE CENTER Date: S& 3 j ;;l~: 
WAC 04 I09 51981 
PETITION: I--igrant Petition for 'Alien Worker as Outsta~ding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 Z 53(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEIIALF 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 mGst be made to that office. 
/' 
Robert P. ~Teinann. Dlrector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The ?reference visa petition was denisd by the Director, CaIlfomi~ Senrice Center: and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals O%ce (iU0) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the petition will 
be approved. 
The petitioner is a semiconductor manufacturer. It seeks classification of the beneticiary as an outstanding 
researcher pursuimt to section 203(b)(lXB) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(I)@). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a manager 
of architecture and design.' The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary 
has attained the outstanding level of achievement required for the categorq. of outstanding professor or 
researcher. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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 ar?d Researchers. - An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic 
area, 
(ii) the zlien 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 - 
0) 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. 8 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an o~tsVanding professor or researcher must be 
accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least thee years of experience in teaching andlor research in 
the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an advanced degree 
1 The job descript~on provided sufficiently establishes that this is a research position. 
ly be acceptable ifthe alien has acquired the degree, and if the teaching duties were such 
or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if the research conducted toward the 
has been recognized wirhln the academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching 
resevch experience shall be in the fom of ietter(s) brn former or current emplayer(s) 
11 include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
erformed by the alien. 
be considered in tkis proceeding is whether the beneficiary's scientific accomplishments are 
ognized as those of an outstanding researcher in his field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
es that a petition for an o~tstxi~ding professor 01 ~esearcher must be accompanied by 
professo~ or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field 
tition." Ontstaqding professors 2nd resezrchers should stand apart in the academic 
eminence and di~tinctio~ based on international recognition. The regdadon at issue 
e used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. 
991). The petitimer must mee? at least two of six stated criteria. The petitioner meets the 
of the aliert's membership in associations in the academic field which rcquire 
offheir members 
submitted evidence that the hstitute of EIectrical and Electronics Engineers (EEE) elected the 
the grstde of fellow in 1995! effective Jjanuary 1, 1996, with the following CI tation: 
of the art in data and voice communicabon systems and 
that contributed to the adoption of asynck~onous transfer mode switching by 
quested svida,ce rcgardifig the minimum requirements for membership, tn response, the 
tted materials from IEEE's website indicating that EEE felIowshp "is conferred by the Board 
n a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of the EEE fields of 
materials also indicate that EEE issues a citation to new feilows "describing their 
s." Finally, the tohi nun,her of fellows selected in ofie year may not exceed one-tenth of tke 
that t:e petitioner had not established the number of rrLmbers; the beneficiuy's "rank" 
the status of the association withn the community or "any other cmditions or 
7I.e director concluded that the ptitioner had not es-tablished Slat IEEE was 
Or appezl, 7 petitioner submitted additional materials from IEEE's website. These materials provide: 
+ 
ade 3f Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the ?rofession arid shal! be cmfmed 
invitation of the Board of Directors upon a person of outstanding and extraordinary 
ar.d ex~erience in EEE-designated fields, and who hzs made important 
to one or more of these fields. 
The mrerjais further indicate that self-nomir?ation is not permitted and tht nomirrations s~ould be sippcrred 
with a "tangible" record of outstanding accomplisiments. Where pzitents are srbmi~ed as ?art of t3e 'Tangble'" 
record, ?he norinator must "state engjneeri~g significance of items." Regardkg selection: 
?he EEE and its member societies cooperate each year 10 select a small gro~p of outstanding 
professionals for recognition as IEEE Fellotvs. A senior IEEE member who has achieved 
distinction ~n his or her fieid can be beamed an IEEE Fellow only after Sang nominated for the 
honor. AN such nmiwtions undergo rigorous miew before the IEEE Board of Governors 
votes to bestow the prestiglous rank of fe'.\ow. 
Typically, nominees must already be senior neders. The nominees are evaluated as fol10ws: 
3 IndividuaI contributio~s as an engineer or scientist, technical leader, or educator; 
c Technical evaluation by onc IEEE society or council; 
o Tangible and verifiable evidence of techqjcal accomplishment, such as technical 
publications, patents, reports, published product descriptions andior services, as listed or. 
the nomination form; 
o Confidential opinions of rcferrers who can attest to !he nominee's work; 
o EEE and non-EEE professional activities, includicg awards, services, 2nd offices heia, 
committee memberships, and the Iike; and 
o Total years in profession. 
The statistics provided reflect that as of March 2002, there were 392,500 members in aU grades, and onIy 5,746 
fellows. h 1999, EEE elected only 43.6 percent of the educatior, nominees and 40.1 percent of the indusq 
nominations. 
Whiie EEE may generally be a nonexclusive professional association, the petitioner has established tht the 
grade of fellow is a rnembership that does require outstanding achievements. ahus, we find that the beneficiary 
does meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic or schola~ly research contn't;utions to the academicfield. 
The petitimer relies on reference letters and the beneficiary's patents as evidence LO meet this c~?:erion. The 
director concluded thaha: the letters from collaborztors could not denonstrate that Be beneficiary's work is 
reco=ized beyond his circle of colleagues md tnat th citations deno~strated only that the beneficiary's work is 
useful. On appeal, counsel reviews the reference letters and asserts that they are from leading authorities in the 
field and ''shcdid be given the same ~veig5t as letra-s written by xnrelated persons." 'fie petitio2er submits two 
new letters and evidence that thc beneficiary has authored 26 paten!s which have been cited in other patents 2. 
Iota; of 319 timcs, with several of the beceficiary's patents receiving at least 40 citations each and !~ttle, if azy, 
overla?. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by Izsting the beneficiary's past p~ojects, a~d 
demonskat~fig :ha; the beneEciary's work was .'ongnaI" in that it did not merely duplicate pnor resea~ch. 
Research work that IS u~origmal would be uniikely to secure ?he jene5c1at-y 2 master's degree. let alone 
classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it stands to reason that t3e 
beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To ugue that al! original research is, by 
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that zdjective beyorid any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
h a similar vein, the evldence that tlie beneficlay hoids several patents for his inventions establishes that he is a 
prolific inventor, but the 17ery existence of the patents does not show that the beneficiary's inventions are more 
significant thzn those of others in his field. To estzblish the signifjcmce of the beneficlay's work, we hm to 
experts in his field, wbose letters we discuss below, and the citatians. 
Xrector of Strategy and Architectare at dicates that he worked closely with 
t3e beneficiay on the archtecture of the that feaiured two techrlological 
breakthrou~hs. Soecifically, the AIM Processo~ and the Pmma switch. -. 
len summarizes the beneficiary's career. Specifically, in the 1970's, the beneficiary designed "16 
md 32 bit microprocessors in the ZBM Adva~ced System Development Division." The beneficiary then 
"cagiAized on this expertise to make a real breaktkough in designing the first ~ndustry Digital Signai 
~rocess ." h the 19gd*s, the beneficiary led "the Aichitecture of the most advagced, at the time, voice/datz 
PBX.'' montinues: 
Integratiag Voice and Data has always been [the bene5ciary1s] long-term objective, 
culminating in the early 19907s, with the Architecture of the first true broadband switch, 
supporting a rich mix of multimedia traffic in both cell and packet fom. This project, lidung 
the most expert researchers at the time, enabled [the beneficiary] to create and support major 
new technological breakthroughs. One of them, the first Network Processor, whiIe viewed with 
skepticism at the time, is nowadays an industry flagship initiative. Another one, developeci in 
conjunction with Research, the Prizrna switch, is the true leader in today's strategic industry. 
Computtx Engineering Program and Seattle Pacific University, asserts that, baseir on z review of the 
beneficiary's credentials, he has "been at the forefront of innovation in the field of Computer Engineering acd 
has made major original contibutions to that field." 
While ietters horn colleagues are importznt in explaining the petitio~er's ro'le in various projects and do carry 
evidentiary weight, they cannot, by themselves, establisk the petitioner's recognition beyond his immediate 
circle of col:ea~des. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the 
pe5tioner throzlgh his repuat~on and who have applied his work are far more ~crsuasive than letters 5om 
independent referecces who were not previously aware of thc petitioner and are mere:y responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitione-r's c~rrlcul.am vitae and work and provide an opinio~ based solely on this 
review. 
As the above letters are from the beneficiary's immediate circle of colleagues and ifidepenaent experts who do 
not appear to have had any prior howledge of the beneficiary or his work prior to Seing requested to provide a 
reference, they cannot, by themselves, establish the beneficiary's international recogni:ion. Clzirrs that the 
beneficiuy's inventions have been pioneering should be verifiable though evidence beyond the attestatiors of 
tke beneficiary's colleag~es. L.1 this matter, ~e petitioner has submitted such evidence. The record reflects t-at 
beneficiary's patents have been frequently referenced in other patents. The record does not establish the 
significance of such references in general or how many references are considered significant in the 
~elecornmu~ications business. For exaqle, the letter writers do not indicate how ofien their own patents have 
been cited. That said, we are satisfied that 3 19 such citations support the claims in the omeficiary's reference 
letters attesting to his international recognition. 
As we conclude :hat the beneficiary meets the two criteria discussed above, we peed not 6iscuss counse!.'s far 
less ?ers~asiw assertions relating to other criteria. 
Re record indicates that the beneficiary meets at !east two of the six criteria Iisted at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Based on the evidence submitt&, it is concluded that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary qualifies 
under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act as an outstanding researcher. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely wlth the petitioner. Section 291 of :he Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. The petitioner has met that burden. Accordingjy, the appeal will be sustained and the petition will be 
approved. 
ORDEW: The appeal is sustained aad the petition is approved.