sustained EB-1B Case: Engineering

idenwing data deletd to 
prevent clearly unw mted 
bdm of ped privwy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 06 05 1 50697 
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. 8 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is an educationlresearch institution. 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. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(B). According to the petition, the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United 
States as a senior 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, counsel submits a brief, a June 6, 2006 Interoffice Memorandum from Michael Aytes, 
Acting Director for Domestic Operations, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and previously 
submitted letters from the petitioner addressed to CIS and to the beneficiary. For the reasons discussed 
below, we find that the beneficiary enjoys an ordinary expectation of continuous employment. 
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, 
() 
 for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(ID) 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. 5 204.5(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 (7th 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. 5 204.5(i)(2), provides, in pertinent part: 
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 ro osed employment was a permanent 
position. The petitioner submitted a letter fi-om Director of the petitioner's Office of 
Foreign Faculty and Scholars, addressed to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), asserting that 
the etitioner desires to employ the beneficiary indefinitely. The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
d , Chair of the petitioner's Engineering Department confirming the beneficiary's 
employment with the petitioner. Neither document constitutes a job offer from the petitioner to the 
beneficiary. On March 11, 2006, the director requested evidence that the petitioner had extended a 
permanent job offer to the beneficiary. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a new letter fi-om 
 addressed to CIS asserting that the 
beneficiary has worked for the petitioner since September 1, 2002 and has a permanent position 
terminable only for good cause. notes that only teaching positions are tenure-track or 
whereas researchers are employed "based on indefinitely renewable contracts." 
, Associate Vice President for Research, confirming that the beneficiary's projects have 
been and continue to be well funded. The petitioner also submitted the employment offers issued to the 
beneficiary in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The positions offered were all for one year and contingent 
on satisfactory performance and funding. 
The director concluded that while the position itself may be permanent, the yearly offers of employment 
reveal that each appointment had a termination date. Thus, the director concluded that the offer was 
non-qualifjmg . 
In promulgating the final regulation, the Immigration and Naturalization Services, 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 
fixed term and in which the employee will ordinarily have an expectation of permanent employment" 
are comparable. (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60867,60899 (November 29, 1991). 
In this matter, the petitioner has submitted the required initial evidence, the relevant job offer. The 
petitioner has not only advised CIS of its intent to employ the beneficiary indefinitely but has 
corroborated that intent with evidence of its continuous renewal of the beneficiary's employment 
over several years. The job offer is not inconsistent with the petitioner's stated intent as it does not 
limit the number of renewals in the position offered. Thus, we are satisfied that the beneficiary 
ordinarily has an expectation of permanent employment as defined in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(i)(2). 
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 met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained and the 
petition will be approved. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.