Case study: TSC RFE for EB1A

Eclipse

Registered Users (C)
Guys,

Just like many people here I got a "general purpose" RFE from TSC for my premium processed DIY EB1A. I decide to write this "case study" to share my experience and lessons so other people can prepare their applications better before they submit it, as well as take advantage of any inputs people can offer me. First allow me to thank many friends on this forum, including good_y, ioananv, tiptodo, and others, who have been so generous in sharing their experience.

My credentials: typical of scientists/engineers here - dual Phd from American University in 2003, 3 years of postdoc since then, 17 publications with about 100 citations by authors from about 20 countries, referee for 7 journals.

My application:

1. Claimed 3 criteria - scholarly publications, original contribution, judge of work of others.

2. I wrote my cover letter like a research paper (I mean the chapter - section structure of the letter, language is layman of course) using latex, even with a table of content. I believe it's quite well written (judged in terms of scientific writing), but apparently it didn't click with the adjudicator.

3. Used exact phrase in the law for the 3 criteria I claimed, and emphasized which criteria I was claiming in a few places including the beginning and conclusion of the petition letter.

4. 7 letters of recommendation from people all over US, including two who I never worked with but cited my papers and met me in conferences.

5. Also 10+ letters from journal editors inviting me to review papers.

Content of RFE: I believe this is typical of the letters many received, which was slightly edited from a common template that people at TSC use.

"You have submitted evidence of your participation in a number of events wherein you pereformed in your field ('a number of events wherein you perfomred,' how ridiculous is this! Evidence that they generate the RFE letter from a sample letter in their computer), but the evidence is not clear in meeting the criteria delineated above. Please submit the following additional evidence:"

(1) further evidence that your awards have national or international recognition. ... -- Huh? Never claimed this.

(2) further evidence that the events in which you performed have a distinguished reputation. Submit evidence of the media coverage the events received, evidence of participation used in determining who is eligible to participate, and any other evidence that the events are distinguished. If renowned individuals participated in the events, submit evidence of those individuals' renown and acclaim. -- Did I claim this? I don't think so - sounds they're talking about the all-star game or Oscar party - how can this apply to scientists/engineers?

(3) (as applicable) evidence of commercial successes of your performance in terms of monetory receipts -- All right, at least they said "as applicable." Don't think I claimed this.

(4) further evidence that the media who have treated your work are themselves "major." How can these publications be regarded as "major" (through, for example, having a large readership or wide circulation, or a history of treating only those who are nationally or ionternationally renowned?) Please respond in detail and submit evidence in support of your response. -- Well I did submit other researchers' citation of my papers and their praise of my work in their papers, but I used it as evidence of the importance of my publications. These were published in premire scientific journals which are certainly "major." But I'm suspicious if this is what they're asking for. Since it was clear they don't consider other people's citation to and comments on the applicant's papers evidence of "published material about the alien in major media. Not sure if I should respond to this point and touch the "published material about the alien" at all.


(5) further evidence that your (publications, articles, research) are of major significance to your profession. For example, how has your work benefited your profession or other interests? Please respond in detail and submit evidence in support of your response. -- Ok I should repond to this one

(6) Further evidence that you have judged or critiqued the work of others in your field (aside from peer review writings.) -- This is my strong point - I refereed many papers for quite a few journals. Yet they don't want me to use this piece of evidence!


(7) Evidence of your membership in organizations or associations who require outstanding achievements. Include evidence of the criteria for membership. -- Don't think I claimed this one though I am a member of American Physical Society.

(8) Evidence that you have commanded a high salary or remunation in relation to others in your field. Include evidence of the normal or usual level of remunatioin for others in this field. -- Don't think I claimed this one though in my job offer letter my boss said he's paying me the highest salary allowed by the university.


Instead of submitting 3 of the listed formes of evidence, you may submit evidence that you have received a major internationally-recognized award ...
-- Yeah, right


(2) Please submit further evidence that you plan to continue work in
your professional field in the United States. ....


All right this is gettinig lengthy let me continue in the next post
 

Eclipse

Registered Users (C)
my plan of replying to the RFE

The following is how I plan to respond. I derived these partly by reading other people's posts, especially those of good_y, ioananv, tiptodo, and others, to whom I owe my thanks. I would appreciate greatly any suggestions/comments/thoughts, not to mention a sample response letter (with personal info deleted) which I can refer to when writing mine.

1. First summarize what was in my original petition letter and emphasize the 3 criteria I had claimed. Also pointed out politely that I didn't claim all the points in the RFE letter, thus do not respond to all of them. This is just to remind the adjudicators so he will read my submission more carefully and will not shoot me down because of criteria that I didn't claim.

2. Get a few more recommendation letters. I plan to ask one of my previous references to write one more letter to testify about "the major significance" of my (publications, articles, research), and a couple of new independent references to talk about how they and their colleagues used my (publications, articles, research) for their own research. This supposedly can satisfy point (5) in the RFE letter. I will use the data for average publications and citations of US research university faculty in “Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change” as suggested by ioananv. I just picked up this book from library and this info is in table 3-6. Thanks ioananv!!! (I wonder how you dug out this wonderful piece of info ioananv - maybe I should look for data for postdocs as well haha!!)

3. I think I should respond to their request for "Further evidence that you have judged or critiqued the work of others in your field (aside from peer review writings.)" This is annoying though. I already submitted 10+ reviewing invitations from editors of 7 journals. I'm not sure if they're saying this is still inefficient evidence of my judging others' work by being a referee, or they want sth besides refereeing for scientific journals. Unfortunately refereeing is the only thing I have, never sat on thesis committee or editorial board. Thus the only thing I can do is to get authorized and signed letters from the editors to emphasize my refereeing work. Any suggestions here?

4. All right, say I've got further evidence for 2 criteria so far. Where's the 3rd come from? Really don't know. In my original petition I claimed for scholarly publications and original contributions, but the RFE letter didn't ask about the original contribution thing. I suppose I can use my new references' recommendations for this, but not sure if this is good enough or it's a good idea at all to talk about sth that the RFE letter didn't ask about specifically.

5. Attach other people's papers in which they cited my publications and discussed my work in some detail. However, can I use this to respond to point (4) in the RFE letter, "further evidence that the media who have treated your work are themselves "major."? I'm not sure.

6. Find some previous AAO decisions and use them to argue to my advantage. This should work. One place to look at is http://www.ilw.com/articles/2002,1010-riley.shtm, where examples are given as how to use AAO decisions to argue for certain criteria. They ommitted the specific case names in the references, but I can look them up. Thanks to ioananv I know where to look up the AAO decisions:
http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-ext-templating/uscis/jspoverride/errFrameset.jsp

7. Finally, "submit further evidence that you plan to continue work in your professional field in the United States. " I already attached my job offer letter and pay stub in my original petition, also wrote a small section in my petition letter saying that I will remain in my field working on problems arising naturally from my current research. I guess I'll mention these again, and attach an employment verification letter signed by the department chair confirming that I've been employed continuously by the dept. Don't know what else I can do.

I hope what I wrote is somewhat useful for other people who are working on their RFE. Of course, I'll be even happier if people can offer me suggestions/ideas/comments/sample
letters.

All right the nest post is some lessons and speculations of mine.
 

Eclipse

Registered Users (C)
Lessons, speculations

1. Want your application to go to TSC instead of NSC? E-file. I learned this on this forum, and it certainly worked in my case. Madgu-gc2005 was worrying whether applications sent to TSC would be re-routed to NSC. I believe this is very unlikely. It is known that NSC has a shortage of trained adjusticators, if any re-routing happens it's more likely in the direction of NSC->TSC

2. Why do they issue RFE for Premium processed case? Some lawyers warned that RFE is more likely for PP-ed case and they speculated that they do this to buy more time. I didn't believe what the lawyers said, but it seems true - we're heard many people report they got RFE on this forum. What's clear is that they didn't read my petition letter and supporting materials carefully -- clearly the RFE letter was just slightly revised from some universal sample letter in their computer, not customized (not much customized at least) according to my specific case. But I don't understand how they can save time by issuing an RFE. Since they have to read my application in some detail once I send in my response, the total time it'll cost them will be the time they need to process the application seriously, plus the time of reading it a first time and issuing an RFE. This will only increase the average time in processing a case.

3. If RFE is very likely for PP-ed petition, is it worth doing? This is the question of madgu-gc2005 and many others - After all, it costs $1000. Yes this is a tough one. If you're absolutely confident in your case, like you win a nobel prize, then it's worth it. Otherwise, it's probably better just to go the plain way. However, premium processing does have an advantage - you can control the maximum processing time of your case, which is 15 days (initial processing) + 90 days (time available for responding to RFE) + 15 days (processing of your response) = 120 days.

4. If you know you are likely to receive an RFE for your PP-ed case, maybe you should reserve some evidence, like a couple of recommendation letters, to make the response easier? I don't know, I think this strategy is worth considering.

All right this is all I want to say, thanks guys!
 

tipotodo

Registered Users (C)
Great Thread. I'll send you some sample letters that I had. I just also want to mention that almost 95% OF ALL EB1-EA PP and NON-PP get RFE, that is pretty standard.

I think you did a great job answering the RFE. One important aspect is, always answer wha they ask, cause thats what they want to hear.

The cover letter is THE MOST important thing of the application, cause sometimes they dont even bother to see the support documents.
 

good_y

Registered Users (C)
I too agree with tipotodo, you should not offend their comments and try to answer all the questions they raised using very diplomaticaly and at the same time with sufficient proof. My attorney told me that he used many legal points in answering the questions, but he did not give me a copy. Moreover, you can even suggest that such and such evidence is provided in section of your original submission.
I too feel a strong covering letter is the key point.
Good luck.
 

eb1a-query

Registered Users (C)
1. Want your application to go to TSC instead of NSC? E-file. I learned this on this forum, and it certainly worked in my case. Madgu-gc2005 was worrying whether applications sent to TSC would be re-routed to NSC. I believe this is very unlikely. It is known that NSC has a shortage of trained adjusticators, if any re-routing happens it's more likely in the direction of NSC->TSC

2. Why do they issue RFE for Premium processed case? Some lawyers warned that RFE is more likely for PP-ed case and they speculated that they do this to buy more time. I didn't believe what the lawyers said, but it seems true - we're heard many people report they got RFE on this forum. What's clear is that they didn't read my petition letter and supporting materials carefully -- clearly the RFE letter was just slightly revised from some universal sample letter in their computer, not customized (not much customized at least) according to my specific case. But I don't understand how they can save time by issuing an RFE. Since they have to read my application in some detail once I send in my response, the total time it'll cost them will be the time they need to process the application seriously, plus the time of reading it a first time and issuing an RFE. This will only increase the average time in processing a case.

3. If RFE is very likely for PP-ed petition, is it worth doing? This is the question of madgu-gc2005 and many others - After all, it costs $1000. Yes this is a tough one. If you're absolutely confident in your case, like you win a nobel prize, then it's worth it. Otherwise, it's probably better just to go the plain way. However, premium processing does have an advantage - you can control the maximum processing time of your case, which is 15 days (initial processing) + 90 days (time available for responding to RFE) + 15 days (processing of your response) = 120 days.

4. If you know you are likely to receive an RFE for your PP-ed case, maybe you should reserve some evidence, like a couple of recommendation letters, to make the response easier? I don't know, I think this strategy is worth considering.

All right this is all I want to say, thanks guys!

Eclipse,

When did you apply for PP? Is this very recently. I was hopeful that finally TSC has stopped issuing unnecessary RFE for PP cases 'to buy time' after seeing some approvals here in the forum (pradeep, sp_ps, deena, etc).

Anyway, your case looks really strong. I just think you also satisfy the criteria "published material about your work by others" since you have so many citations and people really talk about your work in their papers. I would ask for a few more letters from experts from other countries who do not know you at all but have read your papers (make sure you clearly right that in the letter). I have had great success in that. At the beginning it felt a little awkward to ask this big guys. But I have received great responses and most of the time they ask you to draft the letters so that you can incorporate all the critical points to cover the RFE. They will just sign and send it back to you.

If you haven't done yet, get the circulation history for the journals that you published and that cited your work (OCLC First Search).

For some reason USCIS is looking for proof for either a permanent job position or a potential position for E11. So I think, you should get another letter clearly saying that to address the RFE.

Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ioananv

Registered Users (C)
Hi Eclipse!

Don't worry, you'll be fine. Your qualifications are impressive. And it seems that you did a really good job with your cover letter, and you have a good idea how to answer the RFE. Now, my two cents:

I think that it won't help if you comment on their RFE. I know you are quite upset (anybody would be), but don't make it personal. I think it is better that you don't mention that you cannot answer certaion requests. Below is an example of how my husband cover letter was written.

The original criteria plus the additional adjudicator requests (suggestions) were outlined (my husband enclosed them in a box), then he answered below.

D) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as the judge of the work of others in the same, or an allied, academic field. If the evidence includes participation as a judge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewer, etc.
You provided evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed three journal submissions for Astrophysics and Space Science and EPJD. Provide additional evidence that the beneficiary meets this criterion such as evidence of the beneficiary’s selection to a review or editorial board, chair of a scientific conference, grant reviewer, or that the beneficiary has a larger number of article review requests by a number of journals.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:
Letter verifying that Dr. ....’s has been asked to review the works of others, from ...., Publishing Editor, Journal 1

After presenting Dr. ...’s activities with the journal and the journal’s scope, ...., Publishing Editor, states that “Journal 1 selects scientists with outstanding qualifications for our review activities and as authors of submitted articles. Scientists are selected based on the high caliber of their research and their notoriety in the field.”

PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED:
Three (3) recent requests to review the works of others.


Note that for this criterion he could not provide the additional evidence requested, so he tried to improve the original evidence by getting a letter in which the editor explicitly said that they look for outstanding scientists as reviewers. Note that also he did not comment on the fact that he cannot provide the evidence requested. And why should he? In my oppinion it was a helpful suggestion. If he was invited to review journal papers because of his outstanding qualifications, that should satisfy the criterion. But he first had to prove it, and I think the original evidence did not include a statement like this. It just included invitations to review.

So get more really good recommendation letters preferably from people you didn't work with, from different countries too (to prove international recognition). If the letters can support some of the criteria (as you intend to) that would be perfect.

For the reviewing work get those letters from the editors. Ask that they specify the qualifications of the people that act as reviewers, or that they say they chose you because you are extraordinary, outstanding, ... or any other good word here. It would be good if they could also specify the international coverage, circulation, impact factor, and basically how good that journal is. You cannot be sure that they will give all the information you need, but ask for it anyway. If they can comment on your specific referee work, the better.

For the your publications, did you get the impact factor from somewhere (I don't know where to find it but I can ask my husband). You can prove that the journals you published in have high impact factor (if they have), and so they are "major".
This can be also emphasized in you reference letters (that you published in that journal which is the most important, one of the most important... etc. in that specific (or general) field).

And about the salary, you might be able to use that, but unfortunately I don't know how. Maybe other scientists/professors in academia who used it can advise. The other report I suggested,2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) , has some tables about the average income of faculty. APS also used to publish information about the average salary for different physics occupations, and in different physics fields. Check their web site.

What is interesting is that the adjudicator tried to apply some of your qualifications/evidence to more criteria than you requested.(For example the high salary: you boss mentioned you have the highest salary allowed by the university, so the USCIS might consider that you qualify for this criterion if you get more evidence). That is my only explanation about the out-of-place comments/requests.

Sorry for the long message. I think you are definitely going in the right direction. Wish you luck and hope to hear about your approval soon!:)
 

mogambo1

Registered Users (C)
Guys,

Just like many people here I got a "general purpose" RFE from TSC for my premium processed DIY EB1A. I decide to write this "case study" to share my experience and lessons so other people can prepare their applications better before they submit it, as well as take advantage of any inputs people can offer me. First allow me to thank many friends on this forum, including good_y, ioananv, tiptodo, and others, who have been so generous in sharing their experience.

My credentials: typical of scientists/engineers here - dual Phd from American University in 2003, 3 years of postdoc since then, 17 publications with about 100 citations by authors from about 20 countries, referee for 7 journals.

My application:

1. Claimed 3 criteria - scholarly publications, original contribution, judge of work of others.

2. I wrote my cover letter like a research paper (I mean the chapter - section structure of the letter, language is layman of course) using latex, even with a table of content. I believe it's quite well written (judged in terms of scientific writing), but apparently it didn't click with the adjudicator.

3. Used exact phrase in the law for the 3 criteria I claimed, and emphasized which criteria I was claiming in a few places including the beginning and conclusion of the petition letter.

4. 7 letters of recommendation from people all over US, including two who I never worked with but cited my papers and met me in conferences.

5. Also 10+ letters from journal editors inviting me to review papers.

Content of RFE: I believe this is typical of the letters many received, which was slightly edited from a common template that people at TSC use.

"You have submitted evidence of your participation in a number of events wherein you pereformed in your field ('a number of events wherein you perfomred,' how ridiculous is this! Evidence that they generate the RFE letter from a sample letter in their computer), but the evidence is not clear in meeting the criteria delineated above. Please submit the following additional evidence:"

(1) further evidence that your awards have national or international recognition. ... -- Huh? Never claimed this.

(2) further evidence that the events in which you performed have a distinguished reputation. Submit evidence of the media coverage the events received, evidence of participation used in determining who is eligible to participate, and any other evidence that the events are distinguished. If renowned individuals participated in the events, submit evidence of those individuals' renown and acclaim. -- Did I claim this? I don't think so - sounds they're talking about the all-star game or Oscar party - how can this apply to scientists/engineers?

(3) (as applicable) evidence of commercial successes of your performance in terms of monetory receipts -- All right, at least they said "as applicable." Don't think I claimed this.

(4) further evidence that the media who have treated your work are themselves "major." How can these publications be regarded as "major" (through, for example, having a large readership or wide circulation, or a history of treating only those who are nationally or ionternationally renowned?) Please respond in detail and submit evidence in support of your response. -- Well I did submit other researchers' citation of my papers and their praise of my work in their papers, but I used it as evidence of the importance of my publications. These were published in premire scientific journals which are certainly "major." But I'm suspicious if this is what they're asking for. Since it was clear they don't consider other people's citation to and comments on the applicant's papers evidence of "published material about the alien in major media. Not sure if I should respond to this point and touch the "published material about the alien" at all.


(5) further evidence that your (publications, articles, research) are of major significance to your profession. For example, how has your work benefited your profession or other interests? Please respond in detail and submit evidence in support of your response. -- Ok I should repond to this one

(6) Further evidence that you have judged or critiqued the work of others in your field (aside from peer review writings.) -- This is my strong point - I refereed many papers for quite a few journals. Yet they don't want me to use this piece of evidence!


(7) Evidence of your membership in organizations or associations who require outstanding achievements. Include evidence of the criteria for membership. -- Don't think I claimed this one though I am a member of American Physical Society.

(8) Evidence that you have commanded a high salary or remunation in relation to others in your field. Include evidence of the normal or usual level of remunatioin for others in this field. -- Don't think I claimed this one though in my job offer letter my boss said he's paying me the highest salary allowed by the university.


Instead of submitting 3 of the listed formes of evidence, you may submit evidence that you have received a major internationally-recognized award ...
-- Yeah, right


(2) Please submit further evidence that you plan to continue work in
your professional field in the United States. ....


All right this is gettinig lengthy let me continue in the next post


I have a different perspective on this, which I think is more materialistic and practical than ECLIPSE.

#1 While applying for GC you have to swallow the fact that you are an alien here and no one wants you here in first place. No matter what you have done, blah blah blah and no matter what big forts you had build or you have potential to build to strengthern US eduation, health, medicine, science or arts or whatever....it doesnot matter.

It does not matter that there are laws which need to be followed while judging your petition and supportive documents to actually prove that you are required by US or your presence would be useful in benefiting US society at large. After all you are taking their jobs, even if you think you are NOT, in some corner of their heart they feel that you are preventing US citizens from getting something (...) which they should be getting, that can a job, benefits etc etc.

#2 AT this time you are at the receiving end so you have to act judiciusly and try to answer as many questions as possible even if you did not or do not want toclaim other points. If they ask you to prove your ability in relation to other points then YOU SHOULD, as you have no other option. During my saty in USA I have dealt with several such issues and found that you ca never be right, so just do what you are asked to do. NO matter you prove your case with a copy of law. Ultimately it is adjudicators or Imm Officers judgement which cannot be challenged by anyone. ANd keep in mind that in current OPAQUE immigration setup you cannot challenge anything even if you want to or you know that you have right to.....

Now coming to your application.

You said you cliamed only 3 points. And I agree with you that, yes according to the application instructions one must prove their competency in 3 major aspects out of 8 (I guess). Okay here comes a difference between your understanding and mine. You look like that you are provoked by their RFE which is a usual affair for INS. From your RFE questions one can easily understand that no matter in the form they ask you to prove yourself in 3 aspects they still want more evidence on other asepects in your case. If I would be in your place I wont have even bothered to JUST prove 3 aspects, I would have (and I did in my last 2 applications for EB-2 NIW and EB-1 EOA. To tell you both got approved in good time) prove/claim as many points as possible.

So INstead of writting your case on forum on www.immigrationportal.com I would have been busy assessing my case in l;ight of their requirment and work fast enough to gather all that they need.

:cool:
 

Eclipse

Registered Users (C)
Haven't had time to read you people's comments carefully but let me say thanks first. Special thanks to tiptodo who sent me a sample reference letter. ioananv's lengthy comments help a lot too.

Also, I should thank you all for reminding me of not being arrogant in writing my response letter. I guess my initial comments on the RFE caused some confusion - I was just trying to add a bit humor, not that I'll say those things in my letter. But I guess immigration is dead serious business isn't it :)

mogambo1 made a good point that the purpose of response to RFE is to try to satisfy the adjudicator in answering his questions, thus hopefully convince him to grant your petition, not to prove that he was wrong the first time or you know better about the law than him. However I suspect it's a good idea to claim as many points as possible even if your don't have strong evidence for them. As a scientist I (naively) believe it only hurts to make shaky claims, this is what I heard many people say as well. But I guess you never know, as claiming as many as possible worked for mogambo1 at least. I think I'll mostly follow ioananv's strategy, claim as many as I can (no more than 4 I guess) and be honest at the same time.
 

mogambo1

Registered Users (C)
Haven't had time to read you people's comments carefully but let me say thanks first. Special thanks to tiptodo who sent me a sample reference letter. ioananv's lengthy comments help a lot too.

Also, I should thank you all for reminding me of not being arrogant in writing my response letter. I guess my initial comments on the RFE caused some confusion - I was just trying to add a bit humor, not that I'll say those things in my letter. But I guess immigration is dead serious business isn't it :)

mogambo1 made a good point that the purpose of response to RFE is to try to satisfy the adjudicator in answering his questions, thus hopefully convince him to grant your petition, not to prove that he was wrong the first time or you know better about the law than him. However I suspect it's a good idea to claim as many points as possible even if your don't have strong evidence for them. As a scientist I (naively) believe it only hurts to make shaky claims, this is what I heard many people say as well. But I guess you never know, as claiming as many as possible worked for mogambo1 at least. I think I'll mostly follow ioananv's strategy, claim as many as I can (no more than 4 I guess) and be honest at the same time.

GOod to know you got the gist of our suggestions. Stay calm and try to prove as many points as posisble, while taking care not to make shaky claims as you mentioned. I had a US patent, investigator grant where I was PI., several scientific publications in cancer research, several cititions and I even printed out webpages which metioned or appluaded my research results. I had worked on a drug which is now in phase III clinical trial for prostate cancer. Athought I used photocopies of old dated letters I got from 12 referees from ALL OVER WORLD taking caer that they are no at all related to me or my lab. still they seem to have worked to get my subsequent EB_1 EOA application approved.

Lastly even though they did not ask for I also attached my offer letter from my current institution, 16 years of combined scientific experience and evidence of high salary from my HR office. Lastly you all would be surprised to know that I DID NOT include a cover letter, instead I drafted refree reco letters in such a way that they include everything I want to portray about my career :D .

At last it worked. Good luck eclipse I believe if you give a thought with cool mind then you will find several good points in your caeer which you can sell to them.

Just do a google search (better use "dogpile" as it gives you combined search results from sveral big search engines like google, msn yahoo together at one place) and you will be surpsied to know that you dont know so much about yourself and your work being quoted by others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SumeetBabu

Registered Users (C)
In my openion and I agree with others.

Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the USCIS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The USCIS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is important.
 

kku

Registered Users (C)
never mind found the article...could you write here what useful info you were pointing to...
 

Eclipse

Registered Users (C)
Thanks ioananv, I found your information extremely useful. Indeed, in order to write a good petition letter and make a strong case, you first need to know what the adjudicators are looking for (and are instructed to look for). I bet your husband worked really hard to find these things.
 

ioananv

Registered Users (C)
It was a team work. I worked very hard to find most of these things :) (searching this board helped a lot), but he worked very hard to write a really good cover letter to his RFE.

Will you answer the RFE soon?

Wish you luck!
 

Eclipse

Registered Users (C)
Thanks ioananv. I'm very impressed with the info and analysis you and your husband came up with, and I strongly suggest other people pay attention. I'm a physicist too, you and your husband's work certainly reminds me of the rigorous research expected from well trained scientists. It's a little strange that most people would never consult the publications of the organization that actually determines the fate of their case.

I'm working on my RFE, hope you won't mind any further questions I may have :D
 
Top