dismissed EB-1B Case: Medicine

t 
U.S. Department ofHome1and Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
> 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: $AH 6 3 2085 
IN RE: Petitioner: RN UNIVERSITY 
Beneficia 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher ~uiuant to , 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your cas.9. All documents have been returned to 
th cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
td'~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the-~dministrative 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(b)(l)(B). According to 
the petition, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 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. 
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 -- 
( 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 the 
department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons full-time in 
research activities and has achieved documented accomplishments in an 
academic field. 
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 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
b. 
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 job would be permanent.~irector of the 
initially submitted a cover letter from Dr. 
fS asserts that the 
research position o enior Research Associate 
r of the breast cancer research program at the 
research position of unlimited duration with 
this institution.' of the Department of Medicine at the petitioning university, 
asserts that the beneficiary "is currently a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Medicine at a salary 
of $38,000 annually." He concludes that it is the university's "intention to have [the beneficiary] work for us on 
a permanent basis." An unsigned letter purportedly fro-onfirrns that the beneficiary is the primary 
investigator for a research project funded by the National Institutes of Health (m. 
On July 24, 2003, the director requested "a copy of the actual offer of employment made by [the petitioner] to 
[the beneficiary]." The director advi r would be acceptable. In response7 the 
petitioner submitted a new letter from sserts that he is "well acquainted with the 
University's intention to have [the ben rmanent basis, the duties she is expected to 
perform as a Senior Research Associate, and her compensation for executing those d~ties.'~ ~hil- 
further asserts that the petitioning university has offered the beneficiary "a full time research position," he also 
states, without explanation, that "no job formal job offer is available." 
The director stated that the petitioner had not submitted a copy of an employment offer made by the petitioner to 
the beneficiary and. concluded that the petitioner had not met the regulatory evidentiary requirement of 
submitting a letter offering the beneficiary a permanent research position in his academic field. The director 
noted the lack of evidence that the petitioning university, "as a matter of institutional practice, does not reduce 
offers of employment for tenure, tenure-track or comparable research positions @ writing." 
rj C 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's current employment with the petitioner was one of the reasons 
why no formal written job offer was available. Counsel further asserts that the indication on the Form 1-140 
petition that the job was permanent in addition to the cover letter fromwere sufficient evidence of a 
job offer. Counsel notes that th require a job offer to be in the form of a letter from the employer 
and asserts that the letters from dC[s]enior staff members with hiring authority," 
conform to this requirement. Counsel asserts that the regulations do not require that the job offer be addressed 
to the beneficiary. 
- Page 4 
We agree with the director that an offer of employment must be from the petitioner to the beneficiary setting 
forth the title, terms and conditions of the position offered. We cannot .conclude that a letter addressed to 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), or anyone other than the prospective employee, constitutes an 
"offer of employment" as the phrase is commonly understood. 
MoreoVer, the record contains no evidence that the petitioning institution has authorized m 
make legally binding offers of permanent employment. The assertions of counsel do not 
of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). whiles clearly a high-level faculty member, the record lacks 
evidence th-has hiring authority for permanent research positions and that offers extended by him 
are binding on the university.' only an intention to retain the beneficiary on a 
permanent basis. In his sserts that the petitioner holds a full-time position, he 
does not indicate that it is a permanent position. These assertions do not constitute a legally binding job offer, 
pennanent or otherwise. 
Finally, the fact that the petitioner was already employing the beneficiary at the time of filing is not a persuasive 
reason for the professed inability to provide a job offer letter. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary 
would continue in the same position; thus, the original job offer letter for. that position would be acceptable, 
providing it was for a permanent position. In fact, the director specifically advised the petitioner that an 
appointment letter would also be acceptable. Similarly, we would accept an employment contract for a current 
pennanent position. The petitioner did not provide such documents. Dr. Jameson does not assert that the senior 
research associate position is permanent or that the beneficiary can only be terminated for cause.2 The lack of a 
pennanent job offer from the petitioner to the beneficiary is sufficient grounds for denial. 
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. 
1 We were unable to confirm on the petitioner's website, www.northwestern.edu, that department chairs 
have hiring authority for research associates. The website contains a PDF benefits table indicating that only 
the Vice President of Research has appointment approval for research associate and senior research associate 
positions. 
2 We were unable to confirm on the petitioner's website, www.northwestern.edu, that senior research 
associate positions are permanent at the petitioning university. The petitioner's website includes a PDF 
benefits table indicating that the appointment terms for research associates and senior research associates is 
"limited to funding period of grant or contract."