FEB212024_01B3203Decided 2024-02-21I-140

An investment management company's EB-1B petition for an investment writer was dismissed because the beneficiary had…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-1BField: investment writing / investment management research
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the beneficiary did not demonstrate at least three years of teaching or research experience in the academic field and did not receive a qualifying offer of employment for a permanent research position, both of which are required for EB-1B classification.

In plain English

The petitioner, an investment management company, sought EB-1B classification for a beneficiary working as an investment writer. The Texas Service Center denied the petition, and the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the beneficiary had only about 29.5 months of experience with the petitioner at the time of filing — short of the required three years — and that prior employment letters described journalism/writing rather than qualifying research or teaching. Additionally, neither the confirmation of employment letter nor the employer letter to USCIS constituted a proper offer of permanent research employment directed to the beneficiary, as required by regulation. Because both deficiencies were independently dispositive, the AAO declined to address the separate issue of whether the petitioner employs at least three full-time researchers.

What worked & what failed

What failed: 1. The beneficiary had only ~29.5 months of documented research experience at the time of filing, falling short of the mandatory three-year minimum. 2. Prior employer recommendation letters described journalism and writing work, not qualifying research or teaching, and lacked specific employment dates. 3. No document in the record constituted a proper employer-to-beneficiary offer letter for a permanent research position as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iv)(C).

Takeaway: For EB-1B petitions filed by private employers, ensure the beneficiary has a full three years of documented research experience before filing, and submit a formal, signed offer letter addressed to the beneficiary that explicitly offers a permanent (indefinite-duration) research position — a general confirmation of employment letter addressed to USCIS is insufficient.

For RFE responses & petition building

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1B criteria.

Evidence that moved the needle

  • See summary above for details.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • The beneficiary had only ~29.5 months of documented research experience at the time of filing, falling short of the mandatory three-year minimum
  • Prior employer recommendation letters described journalism and writing work, not qualifying research or teaching, and lacked specific employment dates
  • No document in the record constituted a proper employer-to-beneficiary offer letter for a permanent research position as required by 8 C.F.R
  • § 204.5(i)(3)(iv)(C).
Find more EB-1B cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Investment writer and researcher at an investment management company

Completed

Director — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2024-02-21

AAO decision — Dismissed

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the beneficiary did not demonstrate at least three years of teaching or research experience in the academic field and did not receive a qualifying offer of employment for a permanent research position, both of which are required for EB-1B classification.

If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawatheThe petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Christo'sThe AAO reviews questions de novo.
BagamasbadCourts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues unnecessary to the results they reach.
L-A-C-It is permissible to decline to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible.