dismissed EB-1B Case: Biochemistry And Molecular Biology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: dU1 2 0 2007 
LIN 05 044 50694 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 11 53(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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 must be made to that office. 
,(hg&f ypLd4d,y$ C._ J 
i' '~obert P. ~GGann, Chief 
"7 Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a university. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153@)(l)(B). 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a research associate. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established that it had offered the beneficiary a pemanent job as 
of the date of filing. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. The petitioner has not submitted the initial 
evidence required in this matter, the job offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary. Beyond the 
decision of the director, the record, supported mostly by letters from the beneficiary's immediate circle 
of colleagues and a publication record that is not consistent with international recognition, does not 
establish that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) 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 and Researchers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teachmg 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) with 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 
Page 3 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
Job Offer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. @ 204.5(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 classification. The offer of employment shall be in 
the form of a letter fiom: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning ofering the alien 
a tenured or tenure-track teaching position 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. 
(Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary 11 11 (7th ed. 1999) defines "offer" as "the act or an 
instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a contract 
on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand that an 
acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract." Black's Law Dictionary does not 
define "offeror" or "offeree." The online law dictionary by American Lawyer Media (ALM), available 
at www.law.com, defines offer as "a specific proposal to enter into an agreement with another. An 
offer is essential to the formation of an enforceable contract. An offer and acceptance of the offer 
creates the contract." Significantly, the same dictionary defines offeree as "a person or entity to 
whom an offer to enter into a contract is made by another (the offeror)," and offeror as "a person or 
entity who makes a specific proposal to another (the offeree) to enter into a contract." (Emphasis 
added.) 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it 
be made to the offeree, not a third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made 
"to the beneficiary" would simply be redundant. Thus, a letter addressed to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) affirming the beneficiary's employment is not a job offer within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
Page 4 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for 
a term of indefinite or unlimited duration, and in which the employee will ordinarily 
have an expectation of continued employment unless there is good cause for 
termination. 
On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the proposed employment was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter fkom 1 an associate professor 
addressed to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS 
 to "confirm" the beneficiary's 
employment as a "postdoctoral research associate." 
 that the employment is 
"without specific end date and is one in which there is a good expectation of continuing employment." 
This document does not constitute a job offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary. On May 26,2005, 
the director requested evidence that the petitioner had extended a permanent job offer to the 
beneficiary. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a second letter from 
hh 
once again confirming the 
beneficiary's employment as a "research associate" and asserting t at t e petitioner "will be promoted 
to Senior Research Scientist as of July 1, 2005 ." expresses his "understanding that it is 
anticipated that his work will continue at [the petitioning institution] based on performance, funding, 
and mutual agreement ." 
The director determined that the petitioner had failed to submit the required initial evidence in this 
matter, the job offer. 
On appeal, counsel does not expressly contest the director's finding that a petition filed under this 
classification must be supported by a job offer and that the evidence submitted previously does not 
constitute a job offer. Rather, counsel asserts that the two new letters submitted on 
the beneficiary holds a permanent position. The petitioner submits a letter from 
Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the petitioning institution 
confirming that the beneficiary is employed as a research scientist, that the grant for this research has 
been continuously renewed since 1980, that the beneficiary's employment is without an end date and 
that "there is a good expectation for continuing employrnent based on his positive performance." Dr. 
- *- 
~ice chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean of ~raduate studies, asserts that the 
beneficiary began working for the petitioner in 1993 as a research associate and was subsequentlv 
- - 
promoted to the position of senior research scientist. 
 further asserts that this is 
"professional position," is without a specifi 
 to continue indefinitely based 
on the beneficiary's positive performance. 
 notes that the beneficiary's laboratory has a 
track record of continued funding and that should the beneficiary receive permanent residence, "his 
employment will continue subject to satisfactory performance." 
Both of the new letters postdate the filing of the petition and neither letter constitutes an offer of 
employment from the petitioner to the beneficiary. The petitioner has not submitted the primary 
Page 5 
required initial evidence, the original job offer predating the filing date of the petition. Confirmations 
after the fact are not evidence of eligibility as of the date of filing. See generally 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2@)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). The petitioner has not 
complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2@)(2) regarding the submission of secondary evidence. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the original job offer does not exist or is 
unavailable. While we do not question the credibility of those who have confirmed the beneficiary's 
employment, counsel has not sufficiently explained why we should accept attestations about the terms 
and conditions in a document in lieu of the document itself. Without the initial job offer, we cannot 
consider the petitioner's explanations about the terms and conditions set forth in that job offer. 
International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching and/or research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from former or current employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on December 1, 2004 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in 
the field of cell biology. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least three 
years of research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been 
recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the petitioner must satisfy at least two. It is important to note here that the controlling 
purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence submitted to meet 
these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. More 
specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic community 
through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at issue provides 
criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30705 (1 99 1). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following criteria.' 
1 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in ths decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the New York Academy of Science and the 
Moscow branch of the Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Russia. The petitioner 
failed to submit evidence of the membership requirements for these associations. Thus, the record 
does not reflect that these organizations require outstanding achievements of their general 
membership. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic Jield. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation 
The petitioner submitted evidence that hs articles have been moderately cited. Articles whlch cite the 
beneficiary's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the beneficiary. As such, they 
cannot be considered published material about the beneficiary. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academicjield. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects, 
and demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a 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 the beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To 
argue that all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any 
useful meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
The petitioner relies on letters from the beneficiary's colleagues and the beneficiary's publication 
record to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot 
form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. CIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
 The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. 
at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
Page 7 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the beneficiary 
through his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. 
Before we address the specific information provided in the letters, it is notable that some of the 
beneficiary's references 
 their accolades of the beneficiary. I, a professor 
at the Universitv of Missouri-Kansas Citv. asserts that the beneficiarv has "an impressive publication 
record or a yo;ng scientist. " (~m~hasis 'added.) 
 makes the same assertion. - 
f a professor at the petitioning institution, acknowledges that the beneficiary has produced 
"some important results" and speculates that the beneficiary "can make a significant contribution" to 
his area of research. , a professor at Moscow State University, states: 
It is clear that as [the beneficiary] develops into an independent scientist [hle will tackle 
new problems with the same level of expertise, creativity and productivity. 
(Emphasis added.) 
 then states that the beneficiary ranks "among the leading young 
specialists in biochemistry." (Emphasis added.) It can be expected that a researcher who is recognized 
internationally as outstanding would not be described in such qualified terms. 
Other letters provide less qualified ~ecifics r ' provided are not ersuasive. -~ 
asserts that the beneficiary joined 
 laboratory in 2003. 
 asserts that the 
beneficiary discovered that the packaging protein Muclin directly binds to several of the digestive 
enzymes in the pancreas. edicts that these results will allow the research team to be able 
to determine the nature of the molecular interactions, which will "open a new area of research of 
detailed understanding of digestive enzyme storage." asserts that these results are 
significant and important. Neither reference explains how this work is already impacting the field. The 
record does not suggest that ths work has been published or otherwise widely disseminated in the field. 
Thus, it is difficult to gauge the reaction in the wider cell biology community to this work. 
work at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, resulting in a series of articles addressing the 
mechanism of formation of protein complexes. Specifically, the beneficiary illuminated the role of the 
GroEL chaperonin, a protein dedicated to the correct folding and assembling of other proteins. The 
beneficiary also explained the interactions of two subunits of the important human enzyme the pyruvate 
X. otes that this work has been published and cited. Similarly, 
another professor at the petitioning institution, asserts that the beneficiary's 
recognition is apparent from his citation record. Counsel initially asserted that the beneficiary's work 
has "been cited over one hundred times," stating more specifically that the beneficiary had been cited 
1 12 times. The record does not support counsel's assertion. Specifically, the Web of Science printouts 
contained in the record reflect that individual articles bv the beneficiarv have been cited four, six, two, 
six, and two times. While 
 asserts that the average resehch article is only cited once, we 
are not persuaded that between two and six citations per article is evidence that that the beneficiary's 
Page 8 
research is widely recognized as outstanding. 
The petitioner also submits letters from the beneficiary's former colleagues in Russia. 
, a professor at Moscow State University, discusses the beneficiary's work in her laboratory 
as follows: 
[The beneficiary] contributed in a creative and usell way to the research in which he 
was involved. In the course of the study on GroEL/D-gl yceraldehyde-3 -phosphate 
dehydrogenase interactions, he demonstrated for the first time the capability of the 
chaperonin of binding not only unfolded monomeric, but also quasi-native dimeric 
species of the protein. This discovery is important for our understanding of the role 
possibly played by GroEL in the formation of [the] oligomeric protein structure. 
asserts that she has continued to follow his work in the United States. 
professor a Moscow State University, asserts that the beneficiary was the first to use 
covalently immobilized proteins to study GroE-protein interactions because of their complexity. The 
beneficiary improved the chemical synthesis of BrCN and developed a new method for purification, 
which involved a great deal of time and effort. While asserts that it is "difficult to 
overestimate the importance of this work for understanding the basic mechanisms of heat-shock 
nmnes,''d does not 
proteins function in 
 cell as well as their role in folding different e 
explain how this work has impacted the field. For example, 
 does not 1 enti subsequent 
research that was made possible due to the beneficiary's wor 
the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor, asserts that the benefici 
 's Ph.D. research 
t [sic] and expanded the field of protein folding.' 
 asserts that 
the beneficiary received a Young; Scientist Award fiom Moscow State Universitv for excellent 
Y 
performance &ng his Ph.D. program. While 
d 
asserts that this award "distinguishes him 
fiom others with similar education and 
 not establish his recognition beyond 
Moscow State University, where he received his Ph.D. 
While the beneficiary's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's work has garnered international recognition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 9 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored six published articles and several 
abstracts, including three published in the proceedings of a symposium. The Association of American 
Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, 
March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the 
factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career,'' and that "the appointee has the freedom, 
and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the 
appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," 
even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor research career." Thls 
report reinforces our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of 
international recognition; we must consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
As discussed above, the beneficiary's citation record is minimal. Thus, we are not persuaded that his 
publication record is indicative of international recognition in the field. We note that international 
exposure is not necessarily indicative of international recognition. Even if we were to conclude that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion, which we do not, the beneficiary falls far short of meeting any other 
criterion. As stated above, an alien must meet at least two criteria to be eligible for the classification 
sought. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for his work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to an international 
reputation as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 8 1 36 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.