dismissed EB-1B Case: Biomedical Research

identifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of pemm621 privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. fj 1153(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. 
~~ui*td(,ljtd lipilk, 
f\ Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 146 51664 
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 non-profit biomedical research facility. 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a 
research scientist. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had offered the 
beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a job offer issued to the beneficiary dated after the petition was filed. 
For the reasons discussed below, we cannot consider ths evidence as it postdates the filing of the 
petition and was previously specifically and unambiguously requested by the director. As will be 
discussed below, even if we did not uphold the director's basis of denial the petition would still not be 
approvable based on the evidence submitted. 
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 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 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 
LIN 06 146 51664 
Page 3 
hll-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 fi-om: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering 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) afirming 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: 
LIN 06 146 51664 
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 initial submission did not include any evidence relating to a job offer. On November 9, 
2006, the director requested evidence that the petitioner had extended a permanent job offer to the 
beneficiary. The director specifically stated: "The document now requested is the actual offer of a 
permanent research position issued by the university to the alien that will bring the beneficiary to the 
university or change the alien's existing employment status from that of temporary to permanent 
employment." The director hrther noted that if the letter was not from the petitioner's administration, 
human resources, office of the provost or comparable authority, the petitioner should submit a letter 
from the administration or human resources office confirming the letter writer's authority to offer a 
position. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a December 4, 2006 letter fro 
 an immigration 
law specialist for the petitioner, purporting to confirm that the petitioner has been employing the 
beneficiary since January 1, 2003 "in a position of indefinite duration." This letter postdates the filing 
of the petition. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted the required initial evidence in this matter, 
a job offer. On appeal, the 
 submits a May 1,2007 letter &om 
 Director of 
Human Resources, offering the beneficiary the position of research 
 ill "have an 
expectation of continued employment of indefinite duration as defined in 8 CFR Part 204.5(i)(2)." 
The petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide 
it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the 
requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this 
evidence for any purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of 
proceeding before the director. 
The petitioner has not submitted the primary 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). While counsel asserts on appeal that a job offer letter "has not been the custom and 
practice of the Petitioner," 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. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 1 7 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). While 
LIN 06 146 51664 
Page 5 
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. 
Even if the petitioner had overcome the director's basis for denial, the petition would not be 
approvable. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 (1991). 
While we acknowledge that the director never addressed the issue of international recognition in the 
request for additional evidence or the denial, we cannot ignore that the petitioner has never asserted 
which two of the criteria the beneficiary is alleged to meet. Moreover, the petitioner relies solely on 
letters fi-om his immediate circle of colleagues and his articles without evidence that those articles 
have been widely or fi-equently cited. International recognition, by definition, contemplates 
recognition beyond one's immediate circle of colleagues. Any future petition to classify the 
beneficiary as an outstanding researcher would need to be supported by additional evidence relating 
to at least two of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) and indicative of or consistent 
with international recognition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.