remanded EB-1A Case: Academic Research

identifji:~? '. :- 1 tlgtedto 
prevent CIWUL , ~ii warranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofjce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 2 2 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. 
Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to 
that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have 
additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen. The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.5. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion 
seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
pewdff~k Perry Rhew 
'S~hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment based visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director 
will be withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability as a research assistant professor. 
Although the petitioner filed a petition for the beneficiary requesting classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, the director denied the petition, concluding 
that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfied the standards for classification as an 
outstanding professor or researcher under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). 
The director determined that the beneficiary would serve as a research assistant professor in the United 
States and therefore, applied the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3), rather than the evidentiary 
criteria applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability, at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes that it did not purport to qualify 
the beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher, but as an assistant research professor of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner notes that the 1-140 petition was filed for an alien of extraordinary 
ability and that the director applied the "outstanding researcher criteria, instead of the extraordinary 
ability criteria" in his decision. Also, the petitioner notes that the director issued his decision during the 
time allotted for response to the director's May 4,2009 request for evidence ("WE"). 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability. 
Upon review, the petitioner's arguments are persuasive. While the evidence submitted demonstrates 
that the beneficiary in this matter would serve as a research assistant professor, the 1-140 petition and 
the supporting documents submitted by the petitioner state that the petition is for an alien of 
extraordinary ability. Further, the director's May 4, 2009 WE states that the petitioner had four weeks 
in which to submit a response to the RFE. The director issued his decision on May 18,2009, two weeks 
after issuing the RFE. 
The regulations clearly prescribe different evidentiary criteria for aliens of extraordinary ability as 
opposed to outstanding professors or researchers. Consequently, the director's decision dated May 18, 
2009 is withdrawn. The petition will be remanded for application of the correct evidentiary standards 
applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 3 
As always, in visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director 
for further action in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision 
which, if adverse to the petitioner, is to be certified to the Administrative 
Appeals Office for review.