RFE for NIW ...please help

E

eb2niw140

Registered Users (C)
Hello all,
I am a new member of this forum. I applied for EB2 NIW in Jan 2007 through lawyer. Please see my signature. My credentials (at the time of application) were as follows:
1. PhD in biomedical field from a top ranking univ (2006)
2. Currently a postdoc in the same lab
3. 4 publications - 3 first author (1-science, 1- JOA with impact factor 2.0 and one review in impact facotr 12) - about 13 citations for science paper (only 6 months old at that time), 13 for review paper and 1 for JOA paper)
4. 9 strong reco letters - 5 independent from who's who in my field, 4 - one from Phd and postdoc mentor, 1 from collaborator from same univ, 2 more from PhD thesis committee members from other univs
5. 4 first author conference presentations of which three were talks and one was poster
6. Travel awards and best student in Program award
7. Post doc fellowship from a renowned national foundation
8. Two articles about my work (one in Science and One in Nature Immunology), one article in city's leading circulation newspaper (talks abt my discovery, my name mentioned as leading the work) - although my lawyer did not bring these to the attention of the USCIS officier
9. Membership in AAAS and AAI - paid as trainee member nothing great

RFE notice highlights:
They were not questioning prongs 1 and 2. But abt prong 3. They want me to submit more persuasive evidence. It was a broad RFE asking for evidence....everything prong three requires. i.e.,
I am better than an average US worker -
have experts in the field recognized my work,
waht is the national and itnernational impact of my work,
my skills and background are unique,
how do my publications seperate me from others in the field
Circulation of science, how my articles each year, impact of my article, how often was mine cited
Is my work leading to drug companies coming up with cure for the disease ????

Since the initial petition, I have four more articles : two first author reviews and two co-author (impact factors 17 and 7) - all new in last two months so no updates in ISI citations
Citations gone upto 20 for Science article, other remain the same
Getting 7 more independent reco letters

Could the members in the forum please suggest what more I can do? It looks like the officier didn't even look at the previous evidence we submitted.
Thanks in advance
 
First where was this, TSC?

Second, are you sure that they have received your documents that you have sent out. I noticed that some people in this forum had general RFEs only to realize after a while that the Service Center did not recieve their support documentation. This is particularly in e-filing with premium processing, EB1-EA.

Is there any evidence from the RFE letter that suggests that they have indeed went through the material you turned in January?
 
eb2niw140 said:
Hello all,


8. Two articles about my work (one in Science and One in Nature Immunology), one article in city's leading circulation newspaper (talks abt my discovery, my name mentioned as leading the work) - although my lawyer did not bring these to the attention of the USCIS officier
Click to expand...
Fire your lawyer, if you can

Could the members in the forum please suggest what more I can do? It looks like the officier didn't even look at the previous evidence we submitted.
Click to expand...
It may well be that your whole packet was missing- if you e-filed.
 
Yes, it was to TSC.
It was not efiled (EB2 NIW). You still think they could have lost the package? The Qs they have asked can be garnered from the cover letter itself. So maybe they misplaced the remaining supporting docs?
I feel my lawyer did not do a good job with my case. I think she/he was overconfident that I will get through. I have invested lot of money in her /himalready, so I am stuck with her/him. I will put in more self-effort in the RFE cover letter though. My bad luck, I think.
 
It looks like they are getting tougher with Eb2-NIW these days.
After some research and help, I was informed that the best way to go through the last prong is in your recommendation letter. It is all about the quality of the letter, try to use the words they are looking for in the letters.
i.e. that you are better than an average US worker - that your work had a great national and international impact, your skills are unique, you are on the top 1% of your field..... blah blah
SOmetimes, it is really difficult to prove certain skills for the job you are doing. So I guess that is where the recommendation letters stand out.
 
Sorry to hear about your RFE, eb2niw140. In fact, your case is very similar to mine - I also had 4 papers (with about 80 citations or so; did not remeber the exact numbers), and we are even in the same discipline (immunology). I think NIW is really getting tough these days. In fact, depending on who adjudicate your case, it can be even trickier than EB-1s because at least we have a good idea about what the USCIS are looking for specifically in EB-1 cases (based on their field manual), but NIW cases are very vaguely deifned. In addition, people emphasized a lot on the recos, but it is not a sure thing any more - if you go to the AAO decisions (you can find it from the USCIS website), you can find at least one or two cases were dismissed because the reference letters did have the wording such as "the top of the field" or things like that, but the adjudicator was looking for objective evidence to support that claim. Instead, I think the key to successul NIW petitions is how you are going to stand out among the people in your field. This actually reflects the questions in your RFE, so you need to do some homework to find out how many papers in your field were published around the same time as yours and compare the citation numbers, then come up with a "citation rate," i.e. in average how many citations you can get per month or per 3 months, etc. In that case, your Science paper will surely shine because it has quite a few citations in a relatively short period of time. If you can demonstrate that your citation rate is way better than most of the others (say, your citation rate is the top 5% or better in your field), then you have something solid (i.e. objective) to support you. Do not argue that you have not too many (e.g. > 100) citations because they were recent publications, because this will give the USCIS an excuse to say your petition was filed prematurely (you should wait until you get more citations and make more siginificant impact to your field). One more thing, anything you achieved after initial submission will generally not be considered (there is a precedence). Good luck!
 
CD4help
Thank you for your insight. I think the information you provided on how to evaluate and compare your citations to others in the field are very good.
I would like to get some feedback about this:

One of my articles published in 2004 in Tetrahedron Lett. was cited 8 times (6independant citation). I understand this is not a big number. Upon some research, Similar publications in the same year or earlier has gotten citations in the range of 2-4.
Do you think I should point this out? if so how?
I also have one letter that has stated: "I have not worked or collaborated with Dr. XX on personal projects but when one couples her skills in XX, with her training in YY at the University of XX, her contributions to the scientific literature, which for a young researcher (three years post-doctoral) are excellent with other researchers citing her work. I just checked with the major literature database “SCOPUS” and one of her papers has already been cited 7 times in under three years, demonstrating the worth of this young researcher to the USA.""
Does this help?
Thank you
 
wow, your publication record is really good. Don't know why you got a RFE for NIW. I agree with the opinion that your lawyer probably didn't do a good job. Since you have got a couple of more citations and 4 new papers (in good journals), I will just go head with these extra evidence along with 2~3 new independent reference, and this should fix your RFE.
 
Hi hnks,

What I did was to type in the key words of my research topic in the ISI Web of Knowledge database and specifically limit the journals to English and original articles (don't know whether this is necessary though) and get a list (can be very long!) of all the papers in my field published in the same year mine was published, and sort (rank) the list by the number of citations. That way, you can compare yours with the other guys in the same field and see how your papers stand out. As I can see, it can be very helpful if there are few citations in general in your specialty.

As for your letter...it is hard to say. After reading previous cases on this forum and the AAO decisions, my feeling is that some "tougher" adjudicators did not care whether you are a young researcher or an established scientist and consequently you will be compared with those big names, but others did take into consideration that it is unfair to compare a postdoc or a young faculty with a full professor who has been in the field for decades. I honestly does not too much about your field, but "7 times in under three years" does not seem too stellar for people outside your field. Again, it is just my opinion, maybe other friends on this forum have other suggestions?
 
Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions.
CD4help - working with helper T cells?!! Did you ever get RFE or direct approval? Your suggestion abt ISI is very beneficial. I will definitely look that up. The USCIS offcier mentioned that any additional evidence will be considered in conjunction with what has been submitted. You still think that new pubs, citations do not matter? Can I at least use the point that it has increased to show a projected trend?
Arthurking75- thanks for your compliments. I guess my lawyer too was overconfident with my pub record and thought my case did not need much pursuing. My lawyer says that the fact the USCIS officier questioned the circulation of Science as such shows that he/she is a new one with little experience...just going by their books with not much precedent cases to compare.
My lawyer was shocked to read my RFE. But has assured me abt a strong rebuttal. But I will put in my best effort too.
I have got 7 (6 independent, 1 in my univ, NAS member) more experts to give me letters. I hope I get them in time.
 
eb2niw140 said:
Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions.
CD4help - working with helper T cells?!! Did you ever get RFE or direct approval? Your suggestion abt ISI is very beneficial. I will definitely look that up. The USCIS offcier mentioned that any additional evidence will be considered in conjunction with what has been submitted. You still think that new pubs, citations do not matter? Can I at least use the point that it has increased to show a projected trend?
Arthurking75- thanks for your compliments. I guess my lawyer too was overconfident with my pub record and thought my case did not need much pursuing. My lawyer says that the fact the USCIS officier questioned the circulation of Science as such shows that he/she is a new one with little experience...just going by their books with not much precedent cases to compare.
My lawyer was shocked to read my RFE. But has assured me abt a strong rebuttal. But I will put in my best effort too.
I have got 7 (6 independent, 1 in my univ, NAS member) more experts to give me letters. I hope I get them in time.
Click to expand...
Well, I worked on how Th cells help CD8+ T. Very sadly, my first attempt through NIW got denied after RFE, and that ISI strategy was what I used when I re-filed recently. Honestly, that's the most objective evidence I can think about to show we have "a degree of expertise significantly above the majority of others in the field." As for the new achievement after the initial submission, here is the rule: Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, part 103.2(b)(12), states in part that a petition "shall be denied where evidence submitted in response to a request for initial evidence does not establish filing eligibility at the time the...petition was filed." In addition, I have found many AAO decisions cited "Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec.45 (Comm. 1971)" to say the same thing. Thus, the worst case scenario will be that the adjudicator may use your new papers/citations as an excuse to deny your case and cite what I mentioned above. However, there was one (and only one) AAO decision where one very lenient appeal judge acknowledged these rules but still took the new achievement into consideration. Apparently, most adjudicators are not too kind on this one. That's also why most commonly used strategy to deal with RFE is to submit more reference letters, because they can be counted as evidence as long as they are based on your achievement prior to the initial filing date. Thus, be careful about what your referees are going to say in your new recos - it can be a red flag if they cite your new papers or citation record. However, you are right that you may use your new achievement to support the "projected trend," as long as you have something else to show them. At the end, it all depends on whether your adjudicator agrees with you. Good luck!
 
There is a simple way of going around. You can include your citations without any problem because those would have cited for your previously published paper. Aricles, you should claim that the work was done during the petition period which clearly established the continued participation in the filed.
 
For the new articles, not the reviews, but the original submission I can show that the articles were submitted to the journal before jan 25th 2007 and were accepted later. That way I have done the work during the petitioning period. I hope this argument will work.
 
skvadivel: I wish that is true, but it is not - new citations after the initial filing on publications submitted to the USCIS in the original petition packet will (generally) not be counted, as many examples in the AAO decisions I mentioned in my previoius post. For example, if at the time of the initial filing one paper had 20 citations and had another 20 citations when the RFE was issued, then only the original 20 citations will be counted, not the new 20+20=40 citations. You are right that new articles can be used to demonstrate your continued participation and contribution to the field, which is a very important point. I remember long time ago on this forum some people got the RFE for I-140 or even later in I-485 questioning whether the petitioner was still in the same field because there was a long gap (>1.5 years or so) between the initial filing and the time the case was reviewed.

eb2niw140: If those papers were accepted but "in press" at the time of your initial filing, then they will be counted. If they were submitted but not accepted, then they will not be counted. This has been discussed several times before, and you may find it in some old posts here. Again, anything you have done after the initial filing is helpful to show your ongoing contribution to the field, but it will not help you establish the eligibility (i.e. satisfying all three prongs) for NIW - that had to be done at the time of the initial filing. Your lawyer is right that the person reviewing your case is a novice, so just go by their rules. Have your papers/findings been specifically discussed in other papers, rather than just simple footnote citations? That will help a lot. Try to find them in the original citations. Cheers!
 
hi: Everyone makes the mistake between AIO and RFE. When RFE was given, you have chance to provide additional evidence. There is absolutely no problem in adding papers and citations but the case cannot be on the foundation of new papers and citation, it will be just an added advantage to defend your case. Yes you mentioned correctly in the appeal process, they are not asked to consider the new citations and publications or even the award. Yes Obviosuly they want to defend their IO's decision. I have come across numberous cases when new publications and citations have been discussed. When everyone can add extra testimonials, why not articles and citations.
 
skvadivel said:
hi: Everyone makes the mistake between AIO and RFE. When RFE was given, you have chance to provide additional evidence. There is absolutely no problem in adding papers and citations but the case cannot be on the foundation of new papers and citation, it will be just an added advantage to defend your case. Yes you mentioned correctly in the appeal process, they are not asked to consider the new citations and publications or even the award. Yes Obviosuly they want to defend their IO's decision. I have come across numberous cases when new publications and citations have been discussed. When everyone can add extra testimonials, why not articles and citations.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are absolutely right that new papers and citations can help your case (e.g. "the petitioner continues to make siginificant contributions to the field...."), but they cannot be the foundation of your case. For example, there were many friends on this forum getting RFE to question their low citation numbers, and it is not ok to answer that question by saying the citations have grown significantly since the initial filing. As I understand, the reason for this rule is to prevent people from getting priority date unfairly: Let's say a hypothetical situation where one needs 5 papers and 50 citations to get NIW (totally madeup numbers, apparently). If I only have 3 papers and 30 citations now, then I can still file it today and wait for the RFE and hopefully by then I will have the additional 2 papers and 20 citations to satisfy the requirement. Since the priority date is based on the initial filing date for NIW, that means once I get it through I will have a priority date earlier than people who work hard and wait until they meet the 5 papers/50 citations threshold. It is unfair because I just file a premature NIW to establish an earlier priority date, and that's why the USCIS came up with this rule. For RFE, they want to see additional evidence of your achievement as of the initial filing date. In other words, maybe the petitioner's accomplishment has indeed met the requirement but somehow he/she did not submit all the evidence to support it in the original petition, and he/she has the chance to add these evidence in the RFE. :)
 
Hello CD4 and skvadivel,
Thank you both for the very helpful tips. Congrats to skvadivel on getting your eb1 approval. I don't know why the offcier asked again for the citation number when it was porvided in the initial petition. I don't think they even looked at the evidence...just the cover letter. I just hope my lawyer does a good job on RFE as promised!! The very purpose of hiring a lawyer is defeated when we have to do all the homework!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top