remanded EB-1B Case: Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washuigton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 04 212 50280 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 T !I,~, 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien W,orker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(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 retuned to 
ed your case. kny further inquiry must be made to that office. 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
LJN 04 212 50280 
Page 2 
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 decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
The petitioner is an institution of education and research. 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. 
$ 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 it had offered the beneficiary a permanent 
job as of the date of filing. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a new letter from the Assistant Vice President of the petitioning university 
affirming that Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy, the beneficiary's department head who issued the initial job offer letter, 
has the authority to make offers of employment and hire personnel withn the department. 
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 intenlationally 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 
(111) 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. 9 204.5(i)(2), provides, in perttnent part: 
LIN 04 2 12 50280 
Page 3 
Permanent, in reference to a research position, means either tenured, tenure track, or for a term 
of indefinite or unlimited duration, ancl 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 employment was a permanent position. The 
petitioner submitted a letter from addressed to the beneficiary offering a "Postdoctoral 
Research Associate" position "of indefinite duration with the expectation of continued employment, unless there 
is good cause for termination, such as not meeting performance standards." On August 19, 2004, the director 
requested evidence that the petitioner's office of human resources considers the beneficiary's employment 
permanent and that has hiring aut honty. 
In response. the petitioner submitted a new letter fi-om affirming that the beneficiary's position 
is permanently appropriated and evidence of the beneficiary's employment benefits. In his final decision, the 
director stated that most postdoctoral appointmeni:~ are temporary, although he acknowledged that Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) "must rely on the specific terms contained in the actual offer of employment 
made by the employing institution." The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that 
postdoctoral appointments at the petitioning university "differ from the norm in this regard." Finally, the 
director concluded that the record lacked evidence of hiring authority. 
Un appeal, Gary Leitnaker, an assistant vice president for the petitioning university, confirms - 
hiring authority. 
The record contains a job offer issued to the beneficiary, the initial letter from That letter 
s ecifies that the position offered is indefinite. We do not find that by referencing the "position" as indefinite, 
P was indicating that while the position would exist, the offeree would be hired at will or for a 
specific term. in his offer to the beneficiary, specifically states that the beneficiary could only 
be fired for cause. The record does not contain anything that contradicts this assertion or other inconsistencies 
that have not been resolved. On appeal, the petitioner has overcome the director's legitimate concern regarding 
the lack of evidence of hiring authority. Thus, the petitioner has overcome the director's sole 
basis of denial. 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded for consideration of whether the beneficiary qualifies as an outstanding 
researcher as defined in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(3)(i). Specifically, the director may want to 
consider whether the beneficiary's scholarships and fellowships, not well documented to begin with, constitute 
major awards or prizes; whether the beneficiary's memberships require outstanding achievements (beyond 
academic accomplishments) of their members; whether serving as a peer-reviewer for three journals is 
significant;' whether the reference letters, most of which are from the beneficiary's own circle of colleagues and 
all of which provide limited detail regarding how the beneficiary's work has already been applied in the field, 
establish his original contributions to the field (in ;i manner indicative of international recognition) and whether 
the requests for reprints, in the absence of evidence that the beneficiary is widely cited,%s sufficient evidence of 
I 
The director may wish to consider that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to 
review submitted articles. 
Of the four articles that cite the beneficiary's work submitted, one of them is a self-cite by the beneficiary 
and another is a self-cite from one of the benefici;iryls coauthors. The director may wish to consider whether 
this evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's intcrnational recognition. 
LIN 04 212 50280 
Page 4 
the significance of his scholarly articles. As a1wa.y~ in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdraw. The petition 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 review.