Postdoctoral Research Associate, Aquatic Biology
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. WAC 03 004 51383 (AAO Jan. 21, 2004) (NIW denied)
The AAO dismissed an appeal of a CSC decision by a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Biology at Arizona State University (ASU). The research associate, who held a master’s degree in environmental engineering from Bradley University and a Ph.D. in aquatic biology from Saitama University (Japan), used simulation models to mathematically evaluate biological phenomena.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted several witness letters from professors at institutions such as Arizona State University and Saitama University. Many of the witnesses praised the petitioner’s ongoing research. One professor noted that this research would eventually be published:
[The petitioner’s] contribution in my multi-million dollar National Science Foundation project has been invaluable. With his assistance, hard work and skills we are about to complete several very important research sub-projects and they will soon turn into international publications of high quality of which [the petitioner] will be the first author.
Another professor asserted that the petitioner’s discoveries could save U.S. cities large amounts of money:
The cost of nutrient removal for Austin alone is expected to run into approximately $100 million. Even a 10-20% savings cost, based on [the petitioner’s] research, would greatly benefit a cash-strapped municipality like Austin.
Other witnesses discussed the petitioner’s publications and stated that the petitioner’s work had been cited many times. To support these statements, the petitioner included documentation of his publications, but did not submit documentation of his citation history.
The Denial
The AAO held that the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s findings had yet influenced the larger field in a measurable way. In this case, the petition suffered because many of the claims put forth in the testimonials, coming mostly from colleagues and alluding mostly to the future benefit of the researcher’s work, were not backed by objective evidence.
According to the decision, one witness’s statements “regarding the potential benefit of the petitioner’s ongoing research and the expectation that he will eventually publish his results cannot suffice to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver.” The decision continued, “such statements fail to persuasively distinguish the petitioner from other competent researchers.” In reference to the testimonial concerning the use of the petitioner’s research in Austin, Texas, the AAO found that the witness:
describes the “potential” benefits of the petitioner’s research for the City of Austin; however, he offers no objective data showing that the petitioner’s findings have already had a discernable impact on Austin’s water treatment strategies.
The AAO also found that because the testimonials came from witnesses who had direct ties to the petitioner or his research projects and not researchers independent of the petitioner, there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that “the greater scientific community views his findings as particularly significant.” The decision continued:
That the witnesses appear limited to [the petitioner’s] current and former colleagues is not intended to cast aspersions on their integrity. We acknowledge that two of the petitioner’s witnesses do not appear to be current or former colleagues. Also, while letters from witnesses from public agencies or national organizations are certainly helpful, their absence from the record is not automatically fatal to the petitioner’s national interest waiver claim. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the majority of the witnesses in this case became aware of the petitioner’s work because of their collaborations with the petitioner or his superiors. While letters from the petitioner’s research supervisors and collaborators certainly have value, they do not show, first-hand, that his work is attracting attention on its own merits, as we might expect with research findings that are especially significant.
The AAO found unconvincing the evidence concerning the petitioner’s publication and citation records. Based on the definition of a postdoctoral appointment set forth by the Association of American Universities’ Committee on Postdoctoral Education, the AAO found the “publication of one’s work to be ‘expected,’ rather than a mark of distinction, among postdoctoral researchers.”
Finally, the AAO rejected unsubstantiated claims that the petitioner’s work had been widely cited:
Witness statements to the effect that the petitioner’s work has had “a substantial impact in the field of ecological chemistry” cannot suffice to establish such influence, when the petitioner provides no evidence from citation indices to support these claims. Independent evidence that would have existed whether or not this petition had been filed would be more persuasive than subjective statements from individuals selected by the petitioner.
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. WAC 03 004 51383 (AAO Jan. 21, 2004) (NIW denied)
The AAO dismissed an appeal of a CSC decision by a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Biology at Arizona State University (ASU). The research associate, who held a master’s degree in environmental engineering from Bradley University and a Ph.D. in aquatic biology from Saitama University (Japan), used simulation models to mathematically evaluate biological phenomena.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted several witness letters from professors at institutions such as Arizona State University and Saitama University. Many of the witnesses praised the petitioner’s ongoing research. One professor noted that this research would eventually be published:
[The petitioner’s] contribution in my multi-million dollar National Science Foundation project has been invaluable. With his assistance, hard work and skills we are about to complete several very important research sub-projects and they will soon turn into international publications of high quality of which [the petitioner] will be the first author.
Another professor asserted that the petitioner’s discoveries could save U.S. cities large amounts of money:
The cost of nutrient removal for Austin alone is expected to run into approximately $100 million. Even a 10-20% savings cost, based on [the petitioner’s] research, would greatly benefit a cash-strapped municipality like Austin.
Other witnesses discussed the petitioner’s publications and stated that the petitioner’s work had been cited many times. To support these statements, the petitioner included documentation of his publications, but did not submit documentation of his citation history.
The Denial
The AAO held that the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s findings had yet influenced the larger field in a measurable way. In this case, the petition suffered because many of the claims put forth in the testimonials, coming mostly from colleagues and alluding mostly to the future benefit of the researcher’s work, were not backed by objective evidence.
According to the decision, one witness’s statements “regarding the potential benefit of the petitioner’s ongoing research and the expectation that he will eventually publish his results cannot suffice to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver.” The decision continued, “such statements fail to persuasively distinguish the petitioner from other competent researchers.” In reference to the testimonial concerning the use of the petitioner’s research in Austin, Texas, the AAO found that the witness:
describes the “potential” benefits of the petitioner’s research for the City of Austin; however, he offers no objective data showing that the petitioner’s findings have already had a discernable impact on Austin’s water treatment strategies.
The AAO also found that because the testimonials came from witnesses who had direct ties to the petitioner or his research projects and not researchers independent of the petitioner, there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that “the greater scientific community views his findings as particularly significant.” The decision continued:
That the witnesses appear limited to [the petitioner’s] current and former colleagues is not intended to cast aspersions on their integrity. We acknowledge that two of the petitioner’s witnesses do not appear to be current or former colleagues. Also, while letters from witnesses from public agencies or national organizations are certainly helpful, their absence from the record is not automatically fatal to the petitioner’s national interest waiver claim. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the majority of the witnesses in this case became aware of the petitioner’s work because of their collaborations with the petitioner or his superiors. While letters from the petitioner’s research supervisors and collaborators certainly have value, they do not show, first-hand, that his work is attracting attention on its own merits, as we might expect with research findings that are especially significant.
The AAO found unconvincing the evidence concerning the petitioner’s publication and citation records. Based on the definition of a postdoctoral appointment set forth by the Association of American Universities’ Committee on Postdoctoral Education, the AAO found the “publication of one’s work to be ‘expected,’ rather than a mark of distinction, among postdoctoral researchers.”
Finally, the AAO rejected unsubstantiated claims that the petitioner’s work had been widely cited:
Witness statements to the effect that the petitioner’s work has had “a substantial impact in the field of ecological chemistry” cannot suffice to establish such influence, when the petitioner provides no evidence from citation indices to support these claims. Independent evidence that would have existed whether or not this petition had been filed would be more persuasive than subjective statements from individuals selected by the petitioner.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
