dismissed EB-1B Case: Academic Research

U.S. Dcparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Wash~ngton. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
I 
5 1 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
7 9 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Imrnlgration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeal:; Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
; r" 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrai:~t visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center. The director reaffirmed his decision on rnotion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner sought to classify herself as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Imm~gration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(B). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) hority Workers. -- Visas shall first bi: made available . . . to quaIified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding Professors and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized interna~onally 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 position (or tenure-track position) within a university or 
institution of higher educatior~ 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 posi1:ion to conduct research in the area with a 
department, division, or instilute of a private employer, if the department, 
division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in research 
activities and has achieved d,ocumented accomplishments in an academic 
field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(i)(l) provides: 
Any United States employer desiring and intending to employ a professor or researcher who is 
outstanding in an academic field under section 203(b)(I)(R) of the Act mayfile an 1-140 visa 
petifion for such classification. 
(Emphasis added.) The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 2044.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor certification is not 
required for this ~Iassification. The offer of employment shall be in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
tenured or tenure-track teaching positicn in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The department, division, or 
institute must demonstrate that it employs at least three persons full-time in research 
positions, and that it has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
The petitioner submitted multiple job offers, but filed the petition in her own behalf. The director denied the 
petition because it was improperly filed by the alitm seeking classification as an outstanding researcher instead 
of an employer. Thus, the petitioner was statutorily ineligible for the benefit sought. 
On motion, the petitioner asserted that she would join one of two universities that had offered her a job. The 
director concluded that the petitioner had not overcome the fact that the petition was not properly filed by the 
U.S. employer seeking to classify the petitioner as an outstanding professor. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that she mistakenly sought classification as an outstanding professor and 
requests consideration as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The 
petitioner submits an amended petition. 
The petitioner has not cited any provision that requires Citizenship and Immigration Services to consider a 
petition under more than one classification or that allows a petitioner to amend the classification sought at the 
appellate stage instead of filing a new petition with the appropriate fee. The petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the director erred in considering the petition under the classification requested. As such, we must uphold that 
decision. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 
1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. This denial is 
without prejudice to the filing of a new petition, w~th fee, by a United States employer or a new self-petition in a 
classification that permits an alien to petition in her own behalf. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.