dismissed EB-1B Case: Investment Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 21, 2024 In Re: 29834682 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors/Researchers) 
The Petitioner, an investment management company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding 
professor or researcher. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(l)(B) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to individuals who 
are internationally recognized as outstanding in their academic field. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has at least three years of teaching or research experience 
in the academic field, that she received a qualifying offer of employment, and that the Petitioner 
employs at least three persons full-time in research positions. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act provides that an individual is an outstanding professor or researcher 
if the person is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, has at least three 
years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area, and seeks to enter the United States 
for a qualifying position with a university, an institution of higher education, or certain private 
employers. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide evidence that the 
individual has at least three years of experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iv) states that an offer 
of employment from a prospective U.S. employer must be submitted 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 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. 
A permanent research position is defined as "either tenured, tenure-track, 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Before denying the petition, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner for 
documentation establishing that the Beneficiary has at least three years of teaching or research 
experience in the academic field, that she received a qualifying offer of employment, and that the 
Petitioner employs at least three persons full-time in research positions. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's experience, the Director's RFE stated: "Please submit evidence that 
the Beneficiary has at least 3 years of experience in teaching and/or research in the academic area as 
of the date on which Form 1-140 was filed." 1 The RFE further indicated: "Evidence of teaching and/ or 
research experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall 
include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by 
the Beneficiary." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a May 11, 2023 letter from M-J-, its Editorial Director, listing 
the Beneficiary's experience as an "Investment Writer" from September 14, 2020 until the date of the 
letter. This letter shows that the Beneficiary had 2 years, 5 months, and 22 days of experience working 
for the Petitioner when it filed the F orm-140 on her behalf. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the 
time of filing the benefit request. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
In the notice denying the petition, the Director stated: "Based on the information in the letter from M­
J-, the Beneficiary acquired 29.5 months ofresearch experience with the Petitioner as of the filing date 
of March 7, 2023. This is less than the 3 years required." The Director also acknowledged the 
Petitioner's submission of letters of recommendation from the Beneficiary's former colleagues at 
.__________________ _. but explained that these letters "do not specify the start 
and end dates of the Beneficiary's employment with those organizations." The Director further noted 
that the aforementioned letters stated the Beneficiary "worked as a writer and journalist. They do not 
indicate that she gained experience in research or teaching in the field of investment writing." We 
agree with the Director's conclusions on these issues. 
1 The Petitioner's Form 1-140 was filed on March 7, 2023. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a July 21, 2023 "Confirmation of Employment" letter listing the 
Beneficiary's name, start date (September 14, 2020), title, and department, but this letter does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary had at least three years of experience in teaching or research with the 
Petitioner at the time of filing the Form 1-140. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits "copies of [the Beneficiary's] articles from the time she was at □ 
I r It contends that these articles show that the Beneficiary's "past work with 
._______ __. totals "well in excess of thirty-six (36) months." The copies of the articles offered 
by the Petitioner, however, do not identify an author or a date of publication. Nor are the articles 
sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's experience in teaching or research. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) requires that "[e]vidence of teaching and/or research experience shall be in 
the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and title 
of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien." The articles inD
I I do not meet this requirement. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the record 
does not show the Beneficiary has at least three years of teaching or research experience in the 
academic field. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's offer of employment, the Director's RFE stated: 
It must be shown that the Petitioner has extended a qualifying offer of employment to 
the Beneficiary. 
There is no letter from an authorized official of the Petitioner, stating that the Petitioner 
seeks to employ the Beneficiary as the researcher on a permanent basis. Nor did the 
Petitioner provide documentary evidence to establish that the Petitioner's department, 
division, or institute employs at least three persons full-time in research positions and 
has achieved documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
Please submit evidence that a qualifying offer of employment exists. 
In response, the Petitioner presented a May 9, 2023 "Confirmation of Employment" listing the 
Beneficiary's name, start date, title, and department, but this letter does not constitute an offer of 
employment in the form of a letter from the Petitioner to the Beneficiary offering her a permanent 
research position in her academic field. 2 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iv)(C). The Petitioner's response 
also included the May 11, 2023 letter from M-J-, its Editorial Director, confirming the Beneficiary's 
full-time employment and listing her experience as an Investment Writer. This letter is addressed to 
"Department of Homeland Security/USCIS" and does not constitute an offer of employment in the 
form of a letter from the Petitioner to the Beneficiary offering her a permanent research position in her 
academic field. 
2 This "Confirmation of Employment" states: "This letter has been requested by the employee to be used at their 
discretion .... This is a system generated notification and does not require any signature." 
3 
In the notice denying the petition, the Director stated: "Although the letter dated May 11, 2023 from 
M-J- states that the Beneficiary has performed research while employed with the Petitioner, the record 
does not include a letter from an authorized official of the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner has 
offered a permanent research position to the Beneficiary." The Director concluded that the record did 
not include "a job offer letter from the Petitioner for the Beneficiary to work in a permanent research 
position." We agree with the Director's conclusion and the Petitioner does not contest this 
determination on appeal. Here, the Petitioner has not provided an offer of employment in the form of 
a letter from the Petitioner to the Beneficiary offering her a permanent research position in her 
academic field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iv)(C). Nor has the Petitioner shown that the Beneficiary's 
research position is "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." 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
Because the documentation in the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has at least three 
years of teaching or research experience in the academic field and that she received a qualifying offer 
of employment, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for classification as an outstanding 
professor or researcher. Since these issues are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding whether the Petitioner employs at least three 
persons full-time in research positions. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary has at least three years of teaching or research 
experience in the academic field and that she received a qualifying offer of employment. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4