Ph.D. Candidate and Research Assistant, Agricultural Engineering
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. [Not Provided] (AAO Oct. 23, 2003) (NIW denied)
The AAO dismissed an appeal of a Nebraska Service Center (NSC) decision by a Ph.D. candidate and research assistant in the Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). The research assistant investigated ways to use information technology to give farmers tools to optimize productivity. The AAO determined that the evidence did not establish that the research associate’s past record of achievement was at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. Of note were the witness letters, publication record, citation record, and patent history provided.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted several witness letters from professors at institutions such as the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Zhejiang University in China. The witnesses praised the petitioner’s ongoing research. One professor wrote:
[The petitioner’s] current research on information technology in agriculture holds great promise to significantly improve the economy and environment… I certainly believe that [the petitioner] will make a significant contribution in his field that will serve substantially the national interest of the U.S.
As further demonstration of the impact of his work, the petitioner provided evidence that he had published six papers in international journals, over ten papers in international conferences, and had submitted three additional papers for publication. The petitioner also included two patent applications and evidence that his work had been cited eight times.
The Denial
The AAO held that the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work had an influence on the field beyond his immediate projects. In this case, the small number of citations to the researcher’s work and the testimonials alluding mostly to the future benefit of the work hurt the petition.
The AAO noted that one testimonial in particular pertained to “the expectation of future results rather than the petitioner’s specific past research achievements.” The AAO added, “a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility.” The AAO also found that the publication and citation information provided were not adequate to demonstrate a measurable impact in the field.
Although the petitioner provided evidence that he had published six papers in international journals and over ten papers in international conferences, and had submitted three papers that were being prepared for publication, the decision observed that the record:
contains no evidence that the presentation or publication of one’s work is a rarity in the petitioner’s field, nor does the record sufficiently demonstrate that independent researchers have heavily cited or often relied upon the petitioner’s findings in their research.
Regarding the eight citations presented by the petitioner in this case, the AAO found that they were “not sufficient to demonstrate that his findings have significantly influenced his field.” The AAO noted that two of the eight citations presented were self-citations by the petitioner’s research collaborators, which the AAO found could not “demonstrate the response of independent researchers.”
Finally, the AAO discounted the weight of patent applications in demonstrating influence:
[T]he record contains no evidence showing that any of the patents were approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), licensed out by UIUC, or used commercially as of the petition’s filing date. We note here that anyone may file a patent application with the USPTO, regardless of whether the invention constitutes a significant contribution. Even if the petitioner were to provide evidence of an approved patent, it would carry little weight in this matter. Of far greater significance in this proceeding is the importance to the field of the petitioner’s innovations. The granting of a U.S. patent documents only than an innovation is original. According to statistics released by the USPTO, which are available on its website at www.uspto.gov, that agency has approved over one hundred thousand patents per year since 1991. In 2001, for example, the agency received 345,732 applications and granted 183,975 patents.
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. [Not Provided] (AAO Oct. 23, 2003) (NIW denied)
The AAO dismissed an appeal of a Nebraska Service Center (NSC) decision by a Ph.D. candidate and research assistant in the Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). The research assistant investigated ways to use information technology to give farmers tools to optimize productivity. The AAO determined that the evidence did not establish that the research associate’s past record of achievement was at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. Of note were the witness letters, publication record, citation record, and patent history provided.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted several witness letters from professors at institutions such as the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Zhejiang University in China. The witnesses praised the petitioner’s ongoing research. One professor wrote:
[The petitioner’s] current research on information technology in agriculture holds great promise to significantly improve the economy and environment… I certainly believe that [the petitioner] will make a significant contribution in his field that will serve substantially the national interest of the U.S.
As further demonstration of the impact of his work, the petitioner provided evidence that he had published six papers in international journals, over ten papers in international conferences, and had submitted three additional papers for publication. The petitioner also included two patent applications and evidence that his work had been cited eight times.
The Denial
The AAO held that the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work had an influence on the field beyond his immediate projects. In this case, the small number of citations to the researcher’s work and the testimonials alluding mostly to the future benefit of the work hurt the petition.
The AAO noted that one testimonial in particular pertained to “the expectation of future results rather than the petitioner’s specific past research achievements.” The AAO added, “a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility.” The AAO also found that the publication and citation information provided were not adequate to demonstrate a measurable impact in the field.
Although the petitioner provided evidence that he had published six papers in international journals and over ten papers in international conferences, and had submitted three papers that were being prepared for publication, the decision observed that the record:
contains no evidence that the presentation or publication of one’s work is a rarity in the petitioner’s field, nor does the record sufficiently demonstrate that independent researchers have heavily cited or often relied upon the petitioner’s findings in their research.
Regarding the eight citations presented by the petitioner in this case, the AAO found that they were “not sufficient to demonstrate that his findings have significantly influenced his field.” The AAO noted that two of the eight citations presented were self-citations by the petitioner’s research collaborators, which the AAO found could not “demonstrate the response of independent researchers.”
Finally, the AAO discounted the weight of patent applications in demonstrating influence:
[T]he record contains no evidence showing that any of the patents were approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), licensed out by UIUC, or used commercially as of the petition’s filing date. We note here that anyone may file a patent application with the USPTO, regardless of whether the invention constitutes a significant contribution. Even if the petitioner were to provide evidence of an approved patent, it would carry little weight in this matter. Of far greater significance in this proceeding is the importance to the field of the petitioner’s innovations. The granting of a U.S. patent documents only than an innovation is original. According to statistics released by the USPTO, which are available on its website at www.uspto.gov, that agency has approved over one hundred thousand patents per year since 1991. In 2001, for example, the agency received 345,732 applications and granted 183,975 patents.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
