dismissed EB-1B Case: Linguistics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
OCT 2 3 2001 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 06 153 50678 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 fkther inquiry must be made to that office. 
ekes=- 
Robert P. iemann, 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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a public 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. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(B). According to the petition, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United 
States as an assistant professor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it 
had offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing. The director further determined that 
the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement 
required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. Whlle we withdraw the 
director's finding that the petitioner had not offered the beneficiary a qualifying position as of the date 
of filing, we uphold the director's determination that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding. 
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 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
Page 3 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
Job Offer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Act must be accompanied by: 
An ofer 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 from: 
(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 ofering the alien 
a permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer ofering 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 (7" 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) a8rming the beneficiary's employment is not a job ofler within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
Page 4 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
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 em lo 
 ent was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted an April 6, 2000 letter fi-om 
 President of the 
petitioning institution, addressed to the beneficiary offering him "a faculty appointment." The letter 
continues that the beneficiary's visiting appointment would be changed to a term appointment as an 
Assistant Professor for a three year period commencing September 1,2000 and explicitly states that the 
position "is a tenure-track position." On January 17, 2007, the director requested evidence that the 
petitioner had extended a permanent job offer to the beneficiary. The director did not provide any 
explanation as to why the letter from the petitioner's president was insufficient. 
In response, the petitioner submitted several letters advising the beneficiary that his appointment had 
been renewed and, on May 16,2006, after the date of filing, that the beneficiary was being promoted to 
an Associate Professor "effective September 1,2006." 
The director considered only the evidence submitted in response to the request for additional evidence 
and concluded that these letters did not address the issue of tenure. Once again, the director did not 
acknowledge the April 6, 2000 letter fkom the petitioner's president officially offering the beneficiary a 
tenure-track position. On appeal, the petitioner submits another renewal of the beneficiary's 
appointment and information on its continuing appointments. 
The initial evidence submitted includes a job offer for a tenure-track teaching position pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(B)(iii)(I); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(A). Thus, we withdraw the director's finding 
that the petitioner has not established that it has offered the beneficiary a qualifying position. 
International Recognition 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3) states, in pertinent part, 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 teachng 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 
Page 5 
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. 
This petition was filed on April 21, 2006, seeking to classifl the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher in the field of linguistics. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at 
least three years of teaching or research experience in the field of linguistics as of that date, and that the 
beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field of linguistics as outstanding. 
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 beneficiary 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. 
 Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 
199l)(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic$eld. 
For the first time on appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that the beneficiary was selected to receive 
the petitioner's Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Teaching for the academic year 2006-2007. The 
letter advising the beneficiary of this award postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be 
considered. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.20>)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 
1971). 
Moreover, it is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have 
required evidence of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the 
award be "international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" 
has been removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized 
internationally as outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." (Emphasis 
added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60897-01,60899 (Nov. 29,1991 .) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a major 
award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards cannot 
serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. CJ: 8 C.F.R. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
Page 6 
4 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). An award from one's own employer limited to 
professors at that university cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The beneficiary lists several professional affiliates on his curriculum vitae but the petitioner does not 
submit any evidence of these memberships or evidence that the associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. 
Commr. 1972)). 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien 's work in the 
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
While the petitioner has listed this criterion as one the beneficiary meets, the record contains no 
evidence relating to this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academicjeld. 
Initially,, Senior Personnel Associate for the petitioner, asserted tha- 
Briere, Chair of the petitioner's De~artment of Language. Literature and Culture, was providing 
- -. 
evidence that the beneficiary meets this criterion. owever, did not initially assert that thi 
beneficiary has judged the work of others. irector of the Graduate 
Studies in Linguistics at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, asserts that the beneficiary is a 
book review& for The Modern Language 
 t reviewer for The ~nternaional 
Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology. 
 sserts that she only knows the 
beneficiary through his published 
 first hand knowledge of the 
beneficiary's book or manuscript reviews. 
 an associate professor at the University of 
Minnesota, asserts that the beneficiary has "edited selected proceedings" for workshops that he 
organized. Dr. Klee's only explanation as to how she knows of these editing duties is her assertion 
that she has "kept up with the proceedings" of the workshops he organized. As will be discussed 
below, the petitioner has now documented these responsibilities on appeal. 
a lecturer at Dublin City University, asserts that the beneficiary interviewed her 
for her former job with the petitioner as a member of the petitioner's Search Committee Panel. 
 ina all^, Westmoreland, an associate professor at the petitioning institution, asserts that 
- 
the beneficiary has edited two books. 
Page 7 
The petitioner is required by regulation to submit primary evidence unless it can be demonstrated 
that primary evidence is not available or does not exist. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(2)(i). Moreover, 
affidavits are only aennissible where it can be demonstrated that secondarv evidence is not available 
- * 
or does not exist. Id. The petitioner did initially provide one first-hand account. Specifically, 
an associate profesor at the Universidad del Pais Vasco, asserts that he personally has 
"asked [the beneficiary] to serve as the external reviewer of a number of articles within this field for 
the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted more direct 
evidence of the beneficiary's reviewing responsibilities. We note, however, that the petitioner must 
demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing, in this case April 21, 2006. See 8 
C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Thus, we will not consider any 
evidence relating to judging responsibilities aRer that date. 
A 2003 letter fiom 
 Acting Chair of the Department of Spanish and Portugese 
at Temple University, t a s t e ene iciary for agreeing to review the scholarly production of a 
candidate for tenure at that university. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has had 
any professional affiliation with that university. A 2002 letter from Dr. Jeff MacSwan, Chair of the 
Fourth International Symposium on Biligualism (ISB4) Organizing Committee, thanks the 
beneficiary for assisting with the peer review of submissions for colloquia, papers and poster 
presentations. 
The director failed to consider the above evidence, stating that the evidence consisted mostly of 
letters prepared in support of the petition. On appeal, the petitioner submits Selected Proceedings of 
the First Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics as well as the proceedings for the second workshop 
listing the beneficiary as the sole editor for the first workshop and one of two editors for the second 
workshop. The beneficiary's introductions to the proceedings reflect that the workshops were held at 
the petitioning institution in 2002 and 2004.~ The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's two 
book reviews published in The Modern Language Journal in 2001 and 2005 and the beneficiary's 
book review of another book in Linguist List. 
As of the priority date, the beneficiary reviewed manuscripts for publication or presentation, 
authored book reviews, provided guidance to an external tenure panel and edited proceedings for 
workshops held at the petitioning institution. Individually, many of these responsibilities appear 
inherent to the beneficiary's position as a professor. In the aggregate, however, we are persuaded 
that the beneficiary's review responsibilities are at least consistent with international recognition. 
Thus, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
2 
 The beneficiary is also listed as one of three editors for the fourth workshop held in 2007, but this workshop 
postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's original scient$c or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
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 
usefbl meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
As stated above, outstanding 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. See 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Any 
 thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. To conclude that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
The beneficiary received his 
 in Linguistics from the Universidad Complutense de in 
1999. He then joined the faculty of the petitioning institution where he remains. The petitioner 
submitted several support letters. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of international recognition. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 (Comrnr. 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. 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 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Cornrnr. 
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 
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 petitioner 
through his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from 
independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to 
Page 9 
a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based 
solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with international recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting 
that acclaim. 
Dr. Briere provides general praise of the beneficiary's work, asserting that it is "opening up new 
territory" and "actually broadening the field" of contact-linguistics. Specifically, the beneficiary has 
focused on the relations between Spanish, Arabic and other languages in Northern Africa but has 
ex anded his work to include Valencia, Spain, Tunis, Tunisia and New York City. 
h sserts that the type of research the beneficiary is pursuing is rare in the United States 
and in the English-language literature. Assuming this statement to be true, it would not establish that 
the beneficiary's contributions are internationally recognized as outstanding. 
, Chair of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, asserts that he has 
known the beneficiary for five years and that they interact at conferences. asserts that 
the beneficiary brings a unique perspective to the field of sociolinguistics as an Arabic s eaker 
working with Spanish and English. Beyond the beneficiary's unique perspective, dm 
asserts that the beneficiary's research "is well grounded both methodologically and theoretically." In 
addition, the beneficiary- is "equally comfortable working in areas of phonological and lexical 
development, bilingual contact and codeswitching, and the interface between social identity and 
language use." Thus, his work has relevance to a broad spectrum of linguists. 
ho asserts that she knows of the beneficiary through his published work, asserts that 
's work on Spanish in contact with Arabic "is considered the reference on the topic." 
further asserts that the beneficiary's research is the first to analyze in detail the macro- 
aspects of the SpanisWArabic contact, including "the degree of ArabicISpanish 
bilingualism, the processes of naturalistic language acquisition, and the role language identity and 
ideology play in the area." explains that at the micro-sociolinguistic, the beneficiary 
provides a comprehensive structural account of the "understudied" Spanish in North Africa. 
Specifically, the beneficiary discovered almost 2,000 Spanish loanwords used in Moroccan Arabic, 
"representing a serious element of change of this variety of Arabic Erom other dialects in North 
Africa." 
asserts that he first learned of the beneficiary's work in 2000 when the beneficiary 
submitted an abstract for a seminar in Helsinki, which was accepted. asserts that he 
continues to follow the beneficiary's work and has collaborated with the benefici to or anize an 
international meeting in 2003 on language contact and codeswitching in Spain. praises 
the beneficiary's ability to combine theory and field work as well as his ability to draw from different 
linguistic and non-linguistic disciplines. While asserts that the citations of the 
beneficiary's work attest to his leading role in the field, the record contains no evidence of any 
citations of the beneficiary's work. 
Page 10 
Finally, the petitioner submitted four independent letters solicited in relation to the beneficiary's 
promotion and tenure. Of the four authors, only two concede that they had ever heard of the 
beneficiary prior to being solicited for an o inion-on his romotion and tenure based on a review 
packet that accompanied the request. m~a professor at the University of 
Pennsylvania, asserts that he plans to feature one of the beneficiary's papers in one of his classes and 
- -- 
states that the beneficiary "has already made a name for himself internationally." The record lacks 
evidence, however, that use of the beneficiary's articles in course curricula is more widespread. The 
remaining letters support the beneficiary's promotion to a tenured position but do not suggest that his 
contributions are internationally recognized as outstanding. 
The petitioner submits for the first time on appeal several articles authored by the beneficiary. The 
petitioner submitted no evidence that any of these articles have been widely or frequently cited. 
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 fbnding and attention from the 
academic community. The record does not establish that the beneficiary's contributions are 
consistent with international recognition as outstanding in his field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic$eield. 
For the first time on appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored several 
published articles and has presented his work. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F) requires 
the submission of evidence of beneficiary's authorship of scholarly books or articles. A self-serving list 
of articles is insufficient. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(2)(i). The director specifically requested evidence of 
scholarly articles in the request for additional evidence. Thus, the petitioner was put on notice of 
required evidence in the regulation and the director's notice and was 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 director correctly concluded that the record lacked evidence of 
the beneficiary's published articles. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of his collaborators, employers, and mentors, whle securing some degree of international 
exposure for h~s work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an 
alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher or professor. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
Page 11 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.