tony403 said:
Nice for you but perhaps one day even you will understand that there are certain official rules which might apply or not and people should know them to make their own judgement.
This is exactly why you should not be making blanket statements such as needing three years post Ph.D. The requirement is three years research experience. Show me a USCIS regulation that requires this, or a case that was rejected specifically because of it lacked three years of post-Ph.D. experience. Failing to deomnstrate that the Ph.D. work is not internationally recognized does not count. There are plenty of these.
No idiot like you is making the rules but the USCIS. And if you look on their webpage you will see that scientists "must have at least three years experience in teaching or research in that academic area".
See above. This idiot has a Ph.D. and is an internationally recognized researcher (not just by USCIS standards).
You might go around that if you have enough international reputation directly after your PhD but that is not the rule. And I know also several cases where people got RFEs to show that they have three years of research experience after their PhD, so shut up.
Did these people get rejected ultimately? The RFE's probably were because the outstanding nature of the Ph.D. research were not addressed.
I agree that applying for OR without three years experience as a post-Ph.D. researcher is not the norm, because of the legal issues involved. However, it is not impossible, which is what you keep preaching. Don't discourage people from looking into this avenue just because they lack the post-PhD. three years of experience. Bottom line is, a Ph.D. is not even officially required for any of these categories....
"Failing to deomnstrate that the Ph.D. work is not internationally recognized does not count. There are plenty of these."
You are making the mistake to look at these both issues separately. In those cases (like the one which started the thread) which are IMO relatively weak the three year experience might play a major role since those candidates might have problems anyway to demonstrate that they have enough international recognition. Not having the three year post-Ph.D. research experience will set the bar even higher.
"This idiot has a Ph.D. and is an internationally recognized researcher"
But you are always assuming that everybody has the same backgorund as you, won't have any problems with this issue and that is plain wrong and misleading. You shouldn't always set your own case as the USCIS standard but telling other what are the general requirements for OR. You are assuming that it is not a problem for everybody to show that their results during their PhD are outstanding enough to be counted and here I disagree.
"Did these people get rejected ultimately? The RFE's probably were because the outstanding nature of the Ph.D. research were not addressed."
Yes, they got rejected. And as I wrote above, I think not having three years of research experience will set the bar much higher to prove oustanding achievments then with three years experience. And that is the point I think we both disagree.
"However, it is not impossible, which is what you keep preaching. Don't discourage people from looking into this avenue just because they lack the post-PhD. three years of experience."
I don't discourage people but just name all possible problems. You on the other side should bring up all facts and not ignoring some of them if they don't fit in yout arguments. BTW, if somebody relies only on some threads on a message board for the decision to start the EB-1 OR process he is doing something wrong anyway.
