EA versus OR versus everyone else

Anyone have comments on the issues I raised yesterday with the credentials of the recent approval, which according to AAO denial histories, shouldnt have passed?

Also chatterjee1: Is the revocation of 485s you refer to, claimed due to485 being approved despite pending name checks, or is AILF planning to claim a wholesale revocation? If wholesale, can you point to your source of info?

Now, what could AILF's motive be in snatching green cards from 60000 people, other than to ensure continuing business?
 
Interesting thread! Thanks Galactus for your insights.
There is a piece of boilerplate text that appears in many AAO decisions that pretty much sums it all up, in my opinion...
It is along the lines of describing how the folks who wrote the letters in support of the I-140 (usually full professors, senior PIs, well-known and respected experts) are the type of person that EA is meant to apply to, and that the applicant is not quite up to that level yet.

How many times do we see in this forum an "academic" perspective when people post their credentials "I have a PhD from a top University, X pubs, Y citations, reviewed for Z journals...etc". In the academic setting, we are so used to presenting our CVs this way that I think people just assume that USCIS officers will be so impressed. But I suspect that what they are really looking for is objective evidence to show that you have actually contributed something of value, and that you are known for this.

I opted for OR over EA as my institution was willing to support this. I did however, wait for about a year and a half while I collected evidence to make my case watertight. Maybe I could have gone in for EA earlier, but I was just starting on my H1B, and I'm not from a retrogressed country (at least not until last week! :) )so there was no urgency. I thought the standard of meeting international recognition was easier in my particular case, as opposed to the EA criteria, but that's because I worked hard to evaluate the strengths of my individual case (e.g., I was the representative from my country on a number of international publications, and I had letters from researchers in other countries describing how my work had impacted the management of their patients, etc).

One other thing-- I often see posts in here about how long the cover letter should be... mine was 3 pages long. But was was in that letter was clear and convincing, and presented in objective terms how my case met the criteria. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a tough call as to how and why a lot of newly-minted PhDs are getting approved.... I'm sure there are many who really did achieve something extraordinary during their doctoral research, and I don't want to belittle that. But at the end of the day, I think a lot of it just boils down to whether you and/or your lawyer can craft a package that is "approvable".

Best of luck to you!
 
Right. When they do do their jobs, they are pretty objective, more than say your tenure review committee :) For instance, patents have no value, unless they are highly prized. But the fresh PhD syndrome indicates that more often than not, CIS does fall for fluff and packaging. And attorneys are needlessly pusillanimous about EA and OPR, if not thoroughly inept.

I was somewhat similar to you, no real rush, 3 years left on the inital H1, but I started with GC stuff within a few months of H1. I don't really have a home country to go back to... and was bugged by having floated around the US for ages before, hence the rush. I also wanted the freedom to devote time to my first interests- in the arts. The inadequacy of the system here is that it restricts you to a single "in demand" career choice, making you a highly qualified robot. Versatility is stifled. I wonder how much the US and the world has lost because of this limitation. I, for example, could never finish two books I started writing a long time ago.

I could have filed even sooner, but, for a year, after needlessly filing a Labor Certification, I just did stuff I liked and let the momentum build; excepting secreting one or two really strong pieces of evidence. So, when it was time to build a case, I was done within a couple of weeks. That no one else is doing exactly one type of research I do, was both a disadvantage and an advantage, and I of course took full toll of the fact.

I agree that cover letters don't need a prescribed length. It needs to be long, if your case "needs to be puffed up". It also needs to be long, if the evidence you provide, is not easily accessible. In my case, I had to give a lot of contextual detail as I went along, so that the letter was comprehensible. Even then, I think it was no longer than necessary and precise on the points it was making. It also made reading the actual evidence redundant. If your evidence is direct, a precise letter is the best.

On another note, I finally got my card today. Now, I am off to do very "apple pie" things- find a job delivering pizza, and buy an Uzi. Science and Art be damned! Would you like extra cheese on it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top