dismissed EB-1B Case: Mechanical Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 0 4 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/fot·ms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenbe.--~-­
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a United States university, 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. § 1153(b)(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 the beneficiary had attained the outstanding level of achievement 
required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's decision is defective for applying the wrong criteria and 
failing to give proper weight to submitted evidence. The petitioner submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
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, 
(II) 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 the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5 states the following: 
(i) Outstanding professors and researchers. 
(1) Any United States employer desiring and intending to employ a professor or researcher who is 
outstanding in an academic field under section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act may file an 1-140 visa 
petition for such classification. 
(2) Definitions. As used in this section: 
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. 
* * * 
(3) Initial evidence. A petition for an outstanding professor or researcher must be accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in 
the academic field specified in the petition. Such evidence shall consist of at least two 
of the following: 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for 
outstanding achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien ' s membership in associations in the 
academic field which require outstanding achievements of their 
members; 
(C) 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; 
(D) 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 
academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research 
contributions to the academic field; or 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in 
scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic 
field. 
(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 Lhat he or she had full responsibility for the clas s 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 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. 
(iii) 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 from: 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a permanent research position in the alien's academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition filed 
under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with 
the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been 
raised in a subsequent "final merits determination ." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations .
1 
Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three 
types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also 
explained the "final merits determination " as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D)) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only 
aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are 
eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the 
context of a final merits determination. 2 While involving a different classification than the one at issue in this 
matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the cou1t's reasoning persuasive to the classification 
sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. 
II. Analysis 
This petition was filed to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the field of mechanical 
engineering, specializing in fluid dynamics, heat transfer, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and efficient 
numerical algorithms. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that: (1) the beneficiary had at least three years of 
research experience in the field as of the filing date; (2) the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally within the field as outstanding; and (3) the beneficiary has an offer of employment from a 
prospective United States employer. The petitioner has established that the beneficiary has at least three years 
of research experience in the field. At issue here is whether the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
internationally within the field as outstanding. Also at issue here, although not addressed by the director, is 
whether the beneficiary has an offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. 
1. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner initially asserted that the beneficiary was submitting qualifying evidence under three of the six 
criteria, specifically, 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), (E), and (F).3 The director determined that the petitioner had 
submitted qualifying evidence under one of the six criteria, specifically, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). For the 
reasons discussed below , the AAO finds that the petitioner has only submitted qualifying evidence under one 
criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the academic field which require 
outstanding achievements of their members 
2 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under 
three criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act, requires 
qualifying evidence under only two criteria. 
3 As the petitioner only asserts eligibility under 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), (E), and (F), the remaining 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) will not be discussed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
With the initial petition, the petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the following 
In the Request for Additional Evidence (RPE), the director advised that the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) has not been met because the evidence did not show that the above associations require 
outstanding achievments of its members. The director instructed the petitioner to submit evidence establishing 
that the beneficiary's memberships in the above associations require outstanding achievments of its members. 
In response to the RPE, the petitioner asserted that "there is no such organization for the [beneficiary's] 
pa11icular specialized field ." The beneficiary, in his letter in support of the instant petition, elaborated: "Very 
few associations are created purely for the sake of acknowledging distinguished individuals. Internet research 
through that respond to the keywords "distinguished 
and continuing achievements in," not even the Nobel Prize." The beneficiary also stated: "Professional 
associations are optional and only those individuals with extraordinary characteristics 
decides [sic] to participate 
because their own drive of continuing to learn and share their knowledge. " The beneficiary then summarized 
the missions of , · - ----, and asserted that these associations' members "all pursue 
outstanding achievements. " The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), as the evidence did not show that the above 
associations require outstanding achievments of its members. 
Upon review of the record , the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). The petitioner concedes that it cannot meet the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) by 
stating that "there is no such organization for the [beneficiary's] particular specialized field" that requires 
outstanding achievments of its members. The beneficiary's assertion that his membership in associations whose 
members pursue outstanding achievements should qualify under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) is not supported by 
a plain reading of the regulations nor by any citations to legal authority. As such, the petitioner has failed to 
establish eligibility under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
Evidence oft he alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic jzeld. 
As evidence under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), the petitioner submitted four letters of reference. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of the beneficiary's research publications, and asserted that these 
research publications constitute "objective evidence" of the beneficiary's contributions to the field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). In the denial, the director concluded that the submitted documentation "demonstrates that 
the beneficiary has made contributions to his field; however, it has not been established if and how the 
contributions are of major significance in the field of endeavor." The director further stated that in order to 
establish eligiblity under this criterion , the petitioner must submit evidence demonstrating that "the 
beneficiary's contributions are not only original, but that they are of major significance in the field" and that 
"the field has significantly changed as a result of[the beneficiary's] work." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director misapplied standards from another immigrant classification 
to the instant petition by requiring evidence that the beneficiary 's contributions are of major significance in 
the field, and evidence that his work has significantly changed the field of endeavor. The petitioner asserts 
that the director "invoked a series of criteria which are ultra vires and flagrant violation of the Kazarian rule 
against rulemaking at the adjudicative level." The petitioner states, "8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) says what it 
says and nothing more." The petitioner then asserts that the submitted evidence clearly establish that the 
beneficiary has engaged in "original research." 
Upon review, the AAO agrees with the petitioner that the director erred as a matter of Jaw by requiring 
evidence that the beneficiary's contributions are of major significance and have "significantly changed" the 
field. The plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) requires only evidence of original scientific or 
scholarly contributions. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Notwithstanding the above, the AAO concurs with the director that, overall, the petitioner has failed to 
establish eligiblity under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). The AAO will withdraw the director's 
finding that the beneficiary has made contributions to his field. Instead, the AAO determines that the 
submitted evidence is insufficient to show that the beneficiary has made original research contributions to the 
field. While the AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary has engaged in original research, the plain language 
of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not simply require original research, but original research "contributions ." 
Had the regulation contemplated merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have 
included the extra word "contributions." Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires that the 
contributions be "to the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory, university , employer, or company . 
The reference letters are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has made original research contributions 
to the field. 4 Critically, none of the letters explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's work has 
contributed to the overall academic field. The letters contain conclusory assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's contributions and abilities as a researcher, but do not sufficiently explain the factual basis for 
these assertions . Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions and research abilities are 
not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990); A vyr Associates, Inc . v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
4 The AAO observes that the reference letters were all written in April 2011 and submitted in support of the 
beneficiary 's Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, filed on July 5, 2011, in which the 
beneficiary applied for a National Interest Waiver. The petitioner merely submitted duplicate copies of the 
April 2011 letters. The petitioner provided no indication that the writers of the letters were aware or in 
support of the instant petition. The AAO also observes that the letters from 
all praise the benficiary's teaching capabilities. The beneficiary's teaching skills are not 
relevant to the question of whether the beneficiary has made original research contributions to the academic 
field, as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted a letter from~·- ~ --··-·- -· ---- ·-··----, _ - - ~, ----------~---
Biological and Bioengineering, _ -~ _ __ _ __ _ o::..=_ __ -==-----__:=::== 
was the chairman of Mechanical Engineering at where the beneficiary 
was a master ' s student and filled in as Adjunct Professor. states, in pertinent part, that the 
beneficiary's "unparalleled experience in [the field], in addition to his unmatched managerial skills, have 
made of him a walking wealth of knowledge; and the right candidate for any teaching position in which his 
technical capabilities will be of service to the professional advancement of the future generation of 
mechanical engineers here in the US." After discussing the beneficiary's teaching experience , 
then states that the beneficiary "impressed the whole faculty community at 
University when he submitted his Thesis Work titled "The Construction of Integrated Hypersonic Vehicles 
from 2D Flow Fields." asserts that the beneficiary's thesis work "clearly evidenced his 
mastery in the subject of Hypersonic Vehicle Design, which goes beyond my notion of anyone even coming 
close to such a high level of expertise in the materialization of what could potentially be the next generation 
of vehicles." ~-. _ __ concludes that the beneficiary is "a talented researcher and teacher with excellent 
abilities in Fluid Dynamics , Heat Transfer, Aerodynamics, Thermodynamics, and Numerical Algorithms, 
whose work has helped paved the way for next generation of Engineers." 
Although describes the beneficiary in positive terms, does not explain with any 
specificity how the beneficiary's research constitutes a contribution to the field. ' statement 
that the beneficiary's thesis work showed a "high level of expertise in the materialization of what could 
potentially be the next generation of vehicles" falls short of establishing that this particular research has 
made a contribution to the field. Speculation as to potential future contribution cannot establish that the 
beneficiary has made a contribution to the academic field as a whole. statement that the 
beneficiary is a "talented researcher" is conclusory and bears little probative value. 
The petitioner submitted a Jetter from 
Engineering at the petitioning university. 
beneficiary ' s co-author on several publications. 
is the beneficiary's immediate supervisor and the 
states that the beneficiary has "displayed 
outstanding capabilities in teaching, tutoring, and researching activities. " states that the 
beneficiary has "mastered " modern-day equipment employed in the ongoing research operations on thermal 
barrier coatings, has "flawlessly managed some of the most intrinsic lab experiments for the determination of 
thermophysical properties of air plasma sprayed and electron beam physical vapor distribtion ," and has 
processed thermal barrier coatings. also asserts that the beneficiary has been involved in 
securing grants for the petitioning university. lists the beneficiary's research publications , and 
then asserts that " [t]he above publications are essential to the research work on energy security and self-
sufficiency and thus make US very competitive on the global market economically ." concludes 
that the beneficiary " is an outstanding yo\.lng scientist with extraordinary research ability in the field of 
computational fluid dynamics , heat transfer and thermal barrier coatings. He possess a level of expertise in 
the important area of energy and fluid systems that distinguishes him as one of the few who have risen to the 
top ofthe field." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Similar to letter, letter describes the beneficiary in positive terms but does not 
explain with any specificity how the beneficiary's research constitutes a contribution to the field. In 
particular, focuses on how the beneficiary has "mastered" research equipment, "flawlessly 
managed" research lab experiments, and has helped the petitioning university with securing grants. At most, 
this information suggests that the beneficiary has made contributions to the petitioning university; it does not, 
however, explain how the beneficiary has made contributions to the field as a whole. As stated above, the 
plain language of the regulation requires that the contributions be "to the academic field," rather than an 
individual laboratory, university, employer, or company. assertions that the beneficiary's 
research publications "are 
essential to the research work on energy security and self-sufficiency," and that the 
beneficiary is "an outstanding young scientist with extraordinary research ability," are conclusory and bear 
little probative value. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
sought the assistance of the beneficiary and his supervisor, Dr. 
, for a project , for the specific purpose of 
analyzing cooling systems for placement in the company 's diesel driver. Mr. 
discusses the beneficiary and his supervisor's work with respect to this particular project, and states 
that the beneficiary's contribution "helped to resolve this issue [regarding the placement of the coolers] in a 
timely manner and the project to remain on schedule ... [and ultimately,] helped increase flood protection of 
for the upcoming hurricane season. " concludes that the 
beneficiary's "caliber . ... must be allowed to contribute to the development of the nation" and that his work 
is of "intrinsic benefit" to the United States ." also concludes that the beneficiary should be 
granted permanent residence in the United States "and continue to contribute his knowledge [to] the nation 
and to the students of[the petitioning university] ." 
· does not describe with any specificity how the beneficiary has made original research 
contributions to the overall academic field. Instead, his letter focuses on the beneficiary's contributions to a 
particular project of His letter also mentions the beneficiary's 
contribution to the students of the petitioning university and the United States as a whole. Again, the plain 
language of the regulation requires that the contributions be "to the academic field ," not to an individual 
company or university. Furthermore, vague assertions regarding the beneficiary's contributions the United 
States and the "intrinsic value" of his research to are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has made 
original research contributions to the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
was the beneficiary's advisor for his MS and Ph.D. degrees at l 
University, and has also been the beneficiary 's co-author on several publications. speaks 
highly of the beneficiary's intellectual, academic and professional capacity, and moreover, his "ca pacity to 
develop computer codes that utilizes the basic engineering principles to result in realistic computer 
simulations of natural designs. " highlights the beneficiary 's development of a computer code 
that is "capable of designing and analyzing the fluid-structural interaction of aircraft wing configurations. In 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
addition, his code is cap able of identifying the design parameters that will optimize the performance of these 
configurations for a given mission. " also highlights the beneficiary 's MS thesis and Ph.D . 
dissertation, stating that these documents "are now used extensively in the Center for Aerospace Research to 
initiate the training of new students in [the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)]." 
concludes that the beneficiary "possesses the potential to become a foremost expert in his field," and that the 
beneficiary's "research and teaching accomplishments, and his work in CFD have already made a strong 
impact in our center. Based on past performances, I truly believe that [the beneficiary's] professional 
capabilities have the potential of expanding the state-of-the-art in CFD." 
does not describe with specificity how the beneficiary has made original research contributions 
to the overall academic field. While his letter highlights the beneficiary 's development of a computer code 
and that code 's capabilities, does not explain how this code is being applied in the field. 
Without such information, it is unclear how the beneficiary's code constitutes a contribution to the field. 
Further, while indicates that the beneficiary 's work has made contributions to the Center for 
Aerospace Research at , the plain language of the regulation requires that 
the contributions be "to the academic field," not to an individual research center or university. Additionally, Dr. 
speaks positively of the beneficiary's potential to contribute to the field in the future, stating that the 
beneficiary "possesses the potential to become a foremost expert in his field" and has "the potential of 
expanding the state-of-the-art in CFD." However, speculation as to the beneficiary's potential cannot 
establish that the beneficiary has made contributions to the academic field as a whole. 
A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 
(Reg. Comm'r 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 J&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. Matter of Mich elin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
248. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in 
its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matt er of Caron 
International , 19l&N Dec . 791 ,79 5 (Comm ' r 1988) . However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done 
above, evaluate the cont ent of those letters as to whether they support the alien 's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). The letters considered above primarily contain conclusory assertions of 
the beneficiary's contributions, without specifically identifying the contributions and providing specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the academic field or are being applied in the field . 
Overall, the AAO determines that the testimonial letters are insufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility 
under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
With regard to the beneficiary's scholarly publications, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly 
articles at 8 C.P .R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(P). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. 
Therefore, the petitioner's suggestion that the beneficiary's research publications inherently constitute evidence 
of contributions to the field is not persuasive. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing eligibility under the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international 
circulation) in the academic field. 
The AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Therefore, this criterion has been met. 
2. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under at least two of the six criteria found .under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). Therefore, the proper conclusion is that petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of two types of evidence. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least two evidentiary categories, in accordance with 
the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under at least two of the 
criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). Therefore, the AAO will not conduct a final 
merits determination. 5 
3. Job Offer from Qualifying Employer 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to submit acceptable evidence of an 
offer of employment to the beneficiary, which is required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
With the initial petition , the petitioner submitted a letter, dated November 28, 2012; addressed to "To Whom lt 
May Concern." The letter states: 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future 
proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 
(BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions). 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The beneficiary] has been employed with [the pet1t10ning university] in the Mechanical 
Engineering Department since January, 2009 carrying out the full time position of Post­
Doctoral Research Faculty with outstanding capabilities. Included in [the beneficiary 's] daily 
activities he assists Principal Investigators in proposal writing as well as managing all high 
temperature material experiments in the Advanced Material and Research Lab. 
It is our great honor to extend to him a full time position as a Research Assistant professor upon 
approval of his Residency Petition. The proffered annual salary for this position is $55,000 per 
academic year. 
In this position, [the beneficiary] will be responsible for assessing complex problems for 
internal/external research projects in the thermo-physical sector. [The beneficiary] ensures that 
safe work practices are followed at all times in accordance with laboratory safety policies. He 
will work closely with research associates to review and analyze data to achieve the technical 
success of the project. 
We are highly pleased with [the beneficiary's] work ethic productivity and outstanding 
contributions to research activities. He is a valued employee of the Department of Mechanical 
Engineering and has great potential to help us sustain our research productivity with numerous 
publications and continued funding from our sponsors. As an outstanding young researcher 
with a growing publication record, [the beneficiary] also has the potential to contribute to 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education enterprise at [the 
petitioning university] and the nation if given the opportunity. 
The ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the offeree , not a third, unidentified party. 6 Thus, 
the Jetter from the petitioner addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" indicating its intent to employ the 
beneficiary is not an offer of employment within the ordinary meaning of that phrase. The AAO must interpret 
the phrase "offer of employment" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) as commonly defined. Notably, the beneficiary 
stated in his letter submitted in response to the RFE: "It is noteworthy to mention that my current employer [the 
petitioner] have [sic] shown interest to permanently hire me as Research Assistant Professor for the Department 
of Mechanical Engineering." The beneficiary's statement that the petitioner has "shown i.nterest" to hire him 
does not support the conclusion that the petitioner has made an offer of employment. 
In short, the record does not contain an offer of employment from the petitioner addressed to the beneficiary. 
The petitioner has not explained why the AAO should accept the letter dated November 28, 2012 in lieu of the 
6 Black 's Law Dictionary 1189 (9
1
h ed. 2009) 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" and defines "offeree" as "[o]ne to whom an offer is made." In addition, Black's Law 
Dictionary defines "offeror" as "[ o ]ne who makes an offer." /d. at 1190. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
actual offer of employment itself, which is required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). For 
this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO, even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision . See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D . Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see1also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
III. Conclusion 
The record indicates that the beneficiary is a promising researcher who has won the respect of his collaborators 
and employers. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an alien who is 
internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here , that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.