EB-1B Outstanding Professor or Researcher: Six Criteria, Three-Year Experience, and the Tenure-Track Job Offer

What changed

USCIS issued policy memorandum PM-602-0005.1, “Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions,” on December 22, 2010. The memo formally extended the Ninth Circuit’s two-step Kazarian framework — originally articulated for EB-1A petitions in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) — to EB-1B outstanding-professor-and-researcher petitions, EB-2, and EB-3. The memo is now codified at USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 3.

The statutory base for EB-1B is INA § 203(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(B). The alien must be:

• recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area;
• have at least three years of experience in teaching or research in that academic area; and
• seek to enter the United States for a tenured or tenure-track teaching position, or for a comparable research position at a university, institution of higher education, or private employer (the private employer must employ at least three persons full-time in research activities and have documented accomplishments in the academic field).

The implementing regulation is 8 CFR 204.5(i). It lists six evidentiary categories at 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(i). The petition must include documentation of at least two of:

1. Receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field.
2. Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
3. Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien’s work in the academic field.
4. Participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field.
5. Original scientific or scholarly research contributions in the field.
6. Authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field.

Beyond the six criteria, 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the offer of employment from a U.S. employer in a qualifying position, and 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(iii) requires evidence of the three years of qualifying experience.

Why it matters

EB-1B sits between EB-1A and the labor-certification-burdened EB-2/EB-3 in a particular way. Like EB-1A, it requires no labor certification — but unlike EB-1A, it requires a permanent job offer from a specific U.S. employer. That tradeoff drives most filing strategy.

Three points matter most in practice.

Two-step review applies. Under PM-602-0005.1 and the AAO’s subsequent decisions, USCIS first counts whether the petitioner has met at least two of the six criteria as a plain-language matter, then conducts a separate final-merits determination on whether the petitioner is “recognized internationally as outstanding.” A denial that collapses the two steps — refusing to count published articles at step one because the adjudicator believes they are not impressive enough — is appealable, and the AAO has remanded such denials. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Kazarian (596 F.3d at 1121–22) controls the structure even though the case itself involved EB-1A.

The job-offer requirement is real and audited. Many EB-1B denials turn not on the six criteria but on whether the offered position qualifies. For universities, the question is straightforward: is the position tenured, tenure-track, or genuinely comparable? For private-employer research positions, the petition must document (a) at least three full-time researchers employed by the employer in research activities and (b) the employer’s documented accomplishments in the academic field. The “documented accomplishments” requirement is more than an organizational pamphlet — adjudicators look for publications, patents, grants, or third-party recognition tied to the employer’s research arm.

The three-year experience clock is specific. 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(iii) requires letters from current or former employers showing the name, address, and title of the writer; a specific description of the duties; and confirmation of the dates of employment. Experience gained while obtaining an advanced degree counts only if the alien (a) acquired the degree and (b) the teaching duties were such that the alien had full responsibility for the class taught, or the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field as outstanding. The AAO regularly denies on this prong when employer letters are vague or when graduate teaching experience does not satisfy the “full responsibility” gloss.

The current USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 3, walks through each criterion with examples and notes that comparable evidence is generally not permitted for EB-1B — that comparable-evidence safety valve at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(4) applies only to EB-1A. EB-1B petitioners are limited to the six listed criteria.

Way forward

For practitioners preparing an EB-1B in 2026:

1. Pick two criteria you will win on plain language. Most strong cases land on (v) original contributions and (vi) scholarly authorship. Adding (iv) judging (peer-review service for journals or grant panels) is usually achievable and largely uncontroversial. Avoid weak criteria — (i) prizes and (ii) memberships often invite step-one denial reasoning unless the prize or association is well-known.
2. Document international recognition, not local reputation. The statute says “internationally” — citations from researchers outside the petitioner’s home institution and home country are the proof. Expert letters from peers at non-affiliated institutions abroad, citations to the petitioner’s work in international journals, and evidence of invited presentations at international conferences are decisive.
3. Front-load the job-offer documentation. Treat the qualifying-position prong as a separate brief. For university petitions, include the offer letter, the tenure-track designation, and the institution’s handbook section defining the tenure track. For private employers, document the research arm’s headcount, the researchers’ qualifications, and the employer’s published research output.
4. Verify the three-year experience letters. Each letter should be on letterhead, signed by someone in a position to know, and should describe duties at the level of specificity USCIS expects. Generic HR confirmation letters routinely draw RFEs.
5. Coordinate with the employer’s PERM strategy. Many private-employer EB-1B petitions are filed concurrently with — or as alternatives to — a PERM-based EB-2 filing. The strategic question is whether the EB-1B has enough strength on the six criteria to justify the higher evidentiary burden in exchange for skipping PERM and (for chargeability areas where EB-1 is current) faster visa availability.
6. Mind the visa bulletin. EB-1 worldwide has been current much of the time since 2022, but EB-1 India and EB-1 China have moved in and out of retrogression. Filing strategy for India-born researchers in particular should account for the practical possibility of a multi-year wait between I-140 approval and visa availability. Monitor the DOS Visa Bulletin.

Two related authorities. Kazarian itself, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), supplies the two-step framework adopted in PM-602-0005.1. Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff’d 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012), confirmed the framework in subsequent EB-1 litigation. AAO non-precedent decisions on EB-1B, available on the USCIS administrative-appeals website, interpret the individual criteria — particularly (v) original contributions, where the AAO has emphasized that the contribution must be shown to have been adopted or implemented in the field, not merely published.

Disclaimer

We’re a software company, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice. EB-1B adjudication is highly fact-specific, and the AAO continues to issue non-precedent decisions that refine how the six criteria are read in particular academic fields. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on any of the above, and verify every citation against the primary source — the regulation text at 8 CFR 204.5(i), the statute at INA § 203(b)(1)(B), the USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 3, and PM-602-0005.1 on the USCIS website.