remanded EB-1B Case: Pathology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Km. A3042 
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)( 1 )(R) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeal:; 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The decislon of the director will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
The petitioner is an education and research institute. 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. 
I 153(b)(I)(B). According to the petition, the pelitioner seeks to employ the benefic~ary in the United States as 
a research associate. 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 expericmce 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 comparabIe position with a university or institution of higher 
education tocnnduct in the area, or 
(LU) 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. 
(Emphasis added.) The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(1)(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 classif cation. 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 positi~.)n in the alien's academic field; 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the alien a 
, . in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or instirute of a private employer offering the alien a 
permanent research position in the alil-n'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 doc~.~mented accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. (j 204.5(i)(2), provides, .In pertinent part: 
Permanent, In to a rexar&pmha, means either tenured, tenure track, or for a term 
of indefinite or unlimited duration, ancl in which the employee will ordinanly have an 
expectat~on of continued employment unless there is good cause for termination. 
(Underlined emphasis added.) On Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the proposed employment 
was a permanent position. The petitioner submitted a June 23, 2003 letter fromchair of the 
petitioner's Department of Pathology, offering the beneficiary an appointment as an instructor in that 
department. The references letters from faculty at the petitioning institution indicate that the petitioner will 
promote the beneficiary to an Assistant Professor. 
On January 15,2004, the director requested a letter addressed to the beneficiary from a hiring authority with the 
precise terms of the beneficiq's employment. in response, explains. in a letter addressed to the 
director, that the beneficiary's employment "is intended to be permanent." 
The director determined that the record lacked an offer of employment from the petitioner to the beneficiary or 
evidence that the instructor position was "permanent." On appeal, the petitioner submits an e-mail purporting to 
confirm the beneficiary's post-filing appointment as a tenure-track assistant professor. An e-mail is far less 
persuasive evidence that an official letter on univc:rsity letterhead. Counsel asserts that the regulations do not 
require an offer of employment addressed to the beneficiary. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(iii) requires a letter "offering the alien" a job. An offer can only be made 
to the offeree. As such, including a requirement in the regulation that the job offer letter be addressed to the 
beneficiary would be redundant. Thus, we reject counsel's assertion that a job offer letter addressed to the 
beneficiary is not required. That said, the director lltrred in asserting that no such offer was included. The record 
does include a letter offering the beneficiary a position as an instructor. In addition, as the position involves 
teaching courses, the job is not predominantly a research position. According to the statute and rebwlations 
quoted above, the definition of "permanent" relates to research positions only. As such, what is relevant is not 
whether the position is permanent, but whether it is classified as tenure track. 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded for considt:ration of whether the petitioner officially classifies instructor 
positions as "tenure-track." Such evidence might include a faculty classification scheme set forth in an official 
faculty handbook. As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petit~on is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision which, if adverse to the petitioner, 
is to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for revlew.