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
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