Bad NIW RFE?

S

seabird

Registered Users (C)
I just received a RFE for my NIW from Nebraska Center. It is an unusual one, as per my understanding. Please give your comments..

(1)It says the first two criterias of NIW are met, while the 3rd one fails: waiver of laber certification will be contrast to national interest. My petition letter, recommendation letter and evidence addressed 3rd criteria significantly, in fact.
(2)RFE admitted referees speak highly of me, but asks for first-hand documentary about the appraisal of referees: significant contribution, important membership, breakthrough. It also ask for evidence that my research findings have been applied by others. If I had first-hand evidence, I would not need recommendation letter.
(3)RFE doubt the expertise of foreign referees in the availability of researcher in the States, because it is stated in the recommendation letter that my role is irreplacable.
(4)RFE also caught the slips in the application, saying I am submitting "false testimony".
(5) quantity and impact factor of publication

It seems the officer spent quite a lot time in reading my cases carefully and doubt the words in the recommendation letter, even though some of them are from federal and state government. Why they are doing this to me?

Any suggestions or comments appreciated.

Seabird
 
seabird wrote:

"If I had first-hand evidence, I would not need recommendation letter. "

For EB1 and NIW, first-hand evidence is still very crucial even with recommendation letter. As AAO noted in another case:

"Even the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim. Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition (i.e. letters of recommendations). An individual with sustained acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim."

In this context, you should view your RFE positively as an opportunity to further present more convincingly your credentials. In responding to the RFE, please try to focus on items (1), (2), and (5). Obtain more hard evidence to explain the significance of your research, membership, breakthrough, journal articles, impact factor, etc. You can also obtain more letters from independent people citing from your hard evidences.
 
Thanks for your comments, Topfew.

What I feel is that it is very hard to get hard evidnece to demonstrate one's constribution and breakthrough that have no specific definition and can only be admitted by field experts. Plus, what is first-hand evidence? Will a letter solicited from person using my findings serve as first-hand evidence?

Second, I searched the impact factor of journals. Surprisingly, in my area, even the best journals have very low impact factor and some of them are not found at all. This is probably because these journals are too specialized. How then I demonstrate the impact of the journal?

Thanks
 
Thanks for the comments, Crystalview:

All of my papers (7 paperss) are kind of new (less than 2 years) and have not been cited much.
 
I think you may be in a situation where your rec letters (which were probably excellent) don't have other material to back it up. If you recommenders have used language like "being irreplacable" they better explain why that is the case in great detail. If its already explained just repeat it in your response.

BB
 
how about conference publications of your group members

Hi,

I happened to see your problem. What about the conference publications of your group members. Sometimes, you may find out that there are some papers that cited your papers eventhough you may not know them. So you may want to search in some data base like webofscience.com where you will also see
the papers that cited your papers and you can use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top