remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
m 
PUBLIC CW 
rn 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: s~p 1 9 nm 
- - 
SRC 05 073 52216 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability F'ursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2) 
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. 
pobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Admitllstrative 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withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration.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 seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner is a 
postdoctoral research associate at the University of Georgia. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The 
director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree but that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be 
in the national interest of the United States. 
The director's denial notice contains no specific discussion of the merits or deficits of this petitioner's claim of 
eligibility. The notice reads, in part: 
The self-petitioner has submitted both initial filing evidence and additional post filing evidence. 
Additional post filing evidence is subject to Matter of lzummi. 
Representation has provided a brief or statement. 
Representation's statements are subject to Matter of Obaigbena and Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez. 
The decision contains no description or discussion of the evidence or of counsel's "brief or statement"; the 
director simply acknowledged their submission. The decision offers no explanation of the significance of the 
case law cited in the above passage. 
The director's decision contains no infonnation about the petitioner's claims except for the statement that the 
petitioner is a "research associate." The stated grounds for denial are so generic that the petitioner has not had a 
meaningful opportunity to offer a substantive appeal. The wording of the decision offers no obvious indication 
that the author of the decision has examined the record in any detail. 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded. The director should consider all of the evidence now in the record, 
including new exhibits submitted on appeal. If the director believes that the evidence of record does not support 
approval of the petition, the director may request any additional evidence deemed warranted and should allow the 
petitioner to submit additional evidence in support of its position within a reasonable period of time. As always in 
these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is withdrawn. 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.