remanded EB-1B Case: Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PlJBLIC COPY 
FILE: LIN 06 042 51817 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG,~~ 
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. § 1 1 53(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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
7 Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 042 51817 
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 decision of the 
director will be withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
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. 1153(b)(l)(B). 
According to the petition, 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 asserts that it has offered the beneficiary a permanent position as defined at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2). We concur with the petitioner that the position offered is permanent as defined 
in the pertinent regulation. Upon review of the record, however, we withdraw the director's finding 
that the beneficiary meets the necessary two regulatory criteria and remand the matter for a full decision 
on that issue taking into account the considerations set forth at the end of this decision. 
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 
(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 
LIN 06 042 51817 
Page 3 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 
(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) afirming the beneficiary's employment is not a job offer within the 
ordinary meaning of that phrase. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
LIN 06 042 51817 
Page 4 
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 indic 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter fro 
department, addressed to CIS, asserting that 
ployment was a permanent 
Chairman of the petitioning 
beneficiary as a research 
associate, a ''full time and permanent" position. This document does not constitute a job offer fiom the 
petitioner to the beneficiary. On March 17,2006, the director requested evidence that the petitioner had 
extended a permanent job offer to the beneficiary. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated April 22, 2004, addressed to the beneficiary offering 
him a position as a research associate with an annual salary of $29,000. The letter provides that such 
appointments are made on a "year to year basis" but have "excellent prospects for continuation, and are 
considered permanent." The director concluded that the position was not permanent. 
In promulgating the final regulation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now CIS, 
recognized that it is unusual for colleges and universities to place researchers in tenured or tenure- 
track positions. Thus, the commentary to the final rule accepts that research positions "having no 
Jlxed term and in which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of perrnanent employment" 
as comparable. (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60899 (November 29, 1991). 
The job offer does not indicate that the beneficiary's position is limited to a particular number of 
renewals and expresses the petitioner's opinion that the appointment, not the position, is considered 
"permanent." Thus, we are satisfied that the position is permanent as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2). 
Nevertheless, we must remand the matter to the director for additional analysis as to the beneficiary's 
international recognition as outstanding. The director concluded that it "appears that the beneficiary 
has met two of the criteria" set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i). The director does not 
indicate which two criteria the beneficiary meets. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has won a 
major national award or prize, has been the subject of published material, has made original 
contributions and has authored scholarly articles pursuant to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204S(i)(3)(i)(A),(C),(E) and (F). In reconsidering the record, the director shall do the following: 
The director shall consider whether the record contains copies of the beneficiary's awards. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) (regarding the submission of primary evidence, secondary evidence and 
affidavits). The director shall also consider whether the petitioner has submitted objective 
evidence establishing that either alleged award, one of which was simply a travel grant to 
present his work at a conference, is a major prize or award. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A); see 
also Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (acknowledging only the possibility 
LIN06 042 51817 
Page 5 
that a major award that is not international might still be indicative of international recognition 
as an outstanding researcher). 
The director shall also consider whether citations and articles that acknowledge the 
beneficiary's participation at less than authorship level are articles about the beneficiary or his 
work as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
The director shall consider whether the evidence relating to the beneficiary's contributions, 
foreign patents and letters from the beneficiary's immediate circle of collaborators, is indicative 
of or uniquely consistent with international recognition as an outstanding researcher. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E); see also Matter of New York State Dep 't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5,221, 
n.7 (Cornrn. 1998) (involving a lesser classification but discussing the case-by-case evaluation 
necessary when reviewing a patent.) 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded for consideration of the beneficiary's eligibility. As always in 
these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
8 1361. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for 
hrther 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.