EA versus OR versus everyone else

[Galactus]

Hello All. I went through OR, but am kicking myself for not doing EA. When I applied, three different attys told me that I was a shoo-in for OR, but shouldnt risk EA. They said a) having an employer makes it easier b)EA is slightly(only slightly) tougher c) my credentials being non-mainstream, wanted to minimize INS giving me an RFE-- they were looking for "easy way out" strategy (I interpret it as not wanting to work particularly hard on my particular case). I heard roughly the same thing from all three people I consulted. EA doubtful, OR 90%. Didnt want the big bad employer in the pic of course. The most senior (30 yrs exp), and cleverest atty I asked said this is the pecking order of difficulty: NIW<Schedule A(Exceptional ability)<OR<EA. (the first two being roughly equal and the second two being roughly equal)

I did get my OR with no RFE. But, I also hear that fresh PhDs with just gradschool experience behind them are getting EAs approved(!). And fresh PhDs at places such as Intel are getting ORs approved (double !). Both these facts seem to belie the very criteria INS has laid out for these "top of the field" and "international reputation" respectively. I also know that a lot of attorneys systematically ask starting Asst Profs to do NIW or EB-2s-- which seems reasonable. However the abovementioned approvals make it seem that these attys are choosing the path of least resistance, and in reality holding us back. A starting Asst Prof at an ivy league school is usually more qualified than an Intel fresh PhD. A good friend of mine, an asst prof is being asked to do NIW, not even OR. I suggest EA to him. Wondering where the truth lies on OR vs EA. A research article by Miller-Mayer says that OR is tougher to satisfy procedurally, since INS applies a more literal "international" definition, than accepting a number of equivalents as for the EA, but it doesnt say which applicant must have more "research or technical" credentials. What do y'all think? Please answer the poll.

I hate the fact that I trusted my atty, and have to hang around my employer smiling for some more time, than just disappear!

My specific credentials: a major international prize, several articles about me in international newspapers, national TV channels, and cover stories about my work in trade magazines (nothing in proper academic journals- I am not an academic researcher), several original contributions to the field attested by stellar referees from all over the world like Fellow of ACM, Turing winners major industry figures etc., 9 papers (don't have need/time to write, not in academics- I offer consulting services rather.). But, I really think that those fresh PhDs I mention above, can't hold a candle to me. I'll stake my Porsche on that.

Please tell me what y'all think. (reporsting since the poll occludes my actual post...)

 

[kku]

Galactus,

I hate the fact that I trusted my atty, and have to hang around my employer smiling for some more time, than just disappear! ...

I like this quote...and I agree 100% . I was screwed up too for long time by my lawyers until I filed my case myself in EB1..

By the way, congrats for being out of the waiting game...are you from India or other country..as Indians are not so lucky don't get GC's in 6 months..as far as I know.

kku

Hello All. I went through OR, but am kicking myself for not doing EA. When I applied, three different attys told me that I was a shoo-in for OR, but shouldnt risk EA. They said a) having an employer makes it easier b)EA is slightly(only slightly) tougher c) my credentials being non-mainstream, wanted to minimize INS giving me an RFE-- they were looking for "easy way out" strategy (I interpret it as not wanting to work particularly hard on my particular case). I heard roughly the same thing from all three people I consulted. EA doubtful, OR 90%. Didnt want the big bad employer in the pic of course. The most senior (30 yrs exp), and cleverest atty I asked said this is the pecking order of difficulty: NIW<Schedule A(Exceptional ability)<OR<EA. (the first two being roughly equal and the second two being roughly equal)

I did get my OR with no RFE. But, I also hear that fresh PhDs with just gradschool experience behind them are getting EAs approved(!). And fresh PhDs at places such as Intel are getting ORs approved (double !). Both these facts seem to belie the very criteria INS has laid out for these "top of the field" and "international reputation" respectively. I also know that a lot of attorneys systematically ask starting Asst Profs to do NIW or EB-2s-- which seems reasonable. However the abovementioned approvals make it seem that these attys are choosing the path of least resistance, and in reality holding us back. A starting Asst Prof at an ivy league school is usually more qualified than an Intel fresh PhD. A good friend of mine, an asst prof is being asked to do NIW, not even OR. I suggest EA to him. Wondering where the truth lies on OR vs EA. A research article by Miller-Mayer says that OR is tougher to satisfy procedurally, since INS applies a more literal "international" definition, than accepting a number of equivalents as for the EA, but it doesnt say which applicant must have more "research or technical" credentials. What do y'all think? Please answer the poll.

I hate the fact that I trusted my atty, and have to hang around my employer smiling for some more time, than just disappear!

My specific credentials: a major international prize, several articles about me in international newspapers, national TV channels, and cover stories about my work in trade magazines (nothing in proper academic journals- I am not an academic researcher), several original contributions to the field attested by stellar referees from all over the world like Fellow of ACM, Turing winners major industry figures etc., 9 papers (don't have need/time to write, not in academics- I offer consulting services rather.). But, I really think that those fresh PhDs I mention above, can't hold a candle to me. I'll stake my Porsche on that.

Please tell me what y'all think. (reporsting since the poll occludes my actual post...)

 

[Galactus]

Thanks. I am from India, but due to the ostracism we have suffered there, I consider myself stateless. I took a one way flight out, and have never gone back. Beautiful culture, horrible politics.

I should have gotten 485 approval in late July or early Aug (normal 7.5 months time for OR), but the "June" surge moved it forward by a few weeks. Little bit of luck for all the hell I got the last 15 months, with 2 different attys bungling two different applications etc etc. long long sob story.

I have done more digging around about this OR versus EA thing. I am certain that lawyers are playing it safe, and want to do less work on a particular case. Additionally, they cannot understand technical details in different areas and are in fact handicapped, unless they have an absorptive brain. But, if you see Miller-Mayer's AAO denial analysis, the AAO is actually being quite literal with the rules, and talks exactly the same way attorneys do. Based on that information, my atty could be condoned. However, that doesnt explain the bulk of fresh-PhD approvals for OR and EA. I think all these cases simply take a chance, and then click... while the "dudley do rights" like my atty, complicate the matter and have safety devices, appealable premises etc. Since I did OR, I had to use an employer designated atty, and pay him from my pocket. (Joy of working on a federal grant, prohibited from being reimbursed for atty expenses). Even the money doesnt hurt, wasting a strong case hurts... the "low yield" syndrome. been sleepless for two days now.

 

[Aroma_Kills]

Lucky you!!!

Galactus,

Thanks for your good sense of humor. You are a lucky dude, thou! My petition is also India-OR-NSC-Concurrent with a receipt date in Sept. My 140 got approved Mid-April but no progress on 485. Good point is that I didnt pay for it. God giveth and God taketh away

Congrats on your approval and keep posting.

 

[Galactus]

Galactus,
Thanks for your good sense of humor.

Thanks

Congrats on your approval and keep posting.

.. and... thanks

I got lucky in the 2-3 week early approval due to the idiotic June surge, but what happened to me before was horrible, and ten times worse in magnitude than this last and lone stroke of luck. I posted more details here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6050

But back to the OR-EA question: Look at the tough RFE the dude from China posted yesterday. That is more in line with INS rules for OR, and the kind adjudicated by the AAO..... INS is really doing its work. And it is totally in line with the conventional wisdom of attorneys on EB1s. However, how are all these fresh-PhD approvals happening? Surely this doctor with the RFE is FAR more qualified than the fresh-PhDs who get EA and OPR? My new theory is that INS is grossly inconsistent. [Yet, the AAO denials are ridiculously consistent!]

Is this an EB-1 process to attract the best and the brightest or an EB-1 lottery to benefit the luckiest? Has the NSC secretly moved to Vegas? They should print a disclaimer at the bottom of the I-140 approvals-- "What happens at the NSC, stays at the NSC". This is all one big X-file.

On second thought, I think the Chinese dude got an RFE, because his atty was incompetent or wrote a clumsy letter, not because INS was suddenly doing its job. He was asking for trouble, and INS pounced on it. I suppose if you stitch the seams tight, more often than not, INS lets you slip through. Enter the "fresh PhDs" syndrome.

 

[immipassion]

Galactus, I am with you all the way. 3 top-shop attorneys I contacted told me the same story and yes my EB1-OR got approved without RFE too (though June surge did not seem to be of much help to me, I485 RD Nov'06). In short, my experience with MOST of the immigration attorneys has been very similar to that with driving school instructors in NY who know the recipe for trouble-free approval, and no more!

 

[Galactus]

In short, my experience with MOST of the immigration attorneys has been very similar to that with driving school instructors in NY who know the recipe for trouble-free approval, and no more!

That is a terrific analogy, and INS behaves like the fellow who gives the road test. Most only check if you can drive adequately with minimum loss of points. Some wankers are jobless enough to see if your hands are at 10 and 2. [which wankers are in fact, the only ones doing their jobs...]

Personally, all this mess has only left a bad aftertaste in my mouth. You apply in a merit category, and naturally feel robbed if they don't weight merit adequately and give EB1s to all and sundry. On top of which, my attorneys and others had me convinced I was a no-hoper, while in reality, from this forum and others, (which I didnt consult eariler.. I wasnt too interested in GC back then.. worried more about biz and research), I have now learnt that I in fact had a gold-plated case. How did all those attorneys, (some of national repute!) not know? Why mislead my friends into lower categories?! Again, when INS does document cases, they DO seem to be following the rules to the letter, as in the Miller-Mayer article. Hmmmm.

 

[kku]

Galalctus,

My story is no different then yours (after reading your "saga"). Starting 2004 have been taken advice from different lawyers when I thought I was ready to file my case but didn't knew abc on filing.. Each of them, especially closest to my approach with 25 years of experience and charging me for consultancy, told me that I was no good for EB1..such a moron, i am sorry but wasted my 3 complete years making me file in EB2!!and suffer retrogression by the time case was filed. Oh those days, making calls from hospital bed damn it.. until I had my own strong case prepared and filed in EA and got approved in less then 4 months. Anyways, cutting short some lawyers (not all) are the biggest screwers then USCIS!!.

Now I am just waiting for re-linking of my application and of course magic mail somewhere by end of this year, hopefully. But I do corelate and understand your pain for going thru all this. Not to talk Of -hanging around your BOSS with a Big sunshine smile.. .

kku

 

[Galactus]

Now I am just waiting for re-linking of my application and of course magic mail somewhere by end of this year, hopefully.

Hopefully, your time isnt far off. Good Luck.

For me, the attorneys I contacted were quite uniform; excepting one woman who runs an NIW-only shop. She was clearly not practising good law, but was getting lot of NIW approvals. Her trick was to fatten up the application and send in 200-300 pages. It was beneath me to do things like that. Several lawyers I spoke to, were nationally known, and had had lots of EB-1 successes, yet feared it; while many who don't use lawyers get EB-1s. It is all quite strange.

 

[pana]

In my personal opinion there is no big deal in these categories as long as you get the GC SOONER!! In all of these categories, you have to prove that you are at the top level of expertise and working in a novel area created by you!! If you have EB1EA talent and a permanent position, EB1OR is a sure shot! In EB1OR you need to satisfy only 2 criteria where as 3 needed for EB1EA as well as in NIW (with some more complications.. like stay on the same national interest position for ever till you get GC and a huge issue being in EB2 category which won’t become current in next 2-3 years, I guess ) … personally I don’t get it why anyone want to put themselves on risk when they know there is a sure shot option? Well if you think your position is not permanent just don’t think about OR petition! That’s YOU!! how you are presenting your case to an attorney!! .. don’t expect much from them!! Sometimes they don’t recognize some of your excellent credentials .. they focused on some usual so so ones which invite RFEs …YOU are the person responsible to correct/direct your attorney in the right direction.. so commutation with attorney is must… above all it’s your luck plays a lot .. see my signature you will get how frustrated am I !! anyway it’s like playing gamble at Las Vegas ..play it without much expectations… at the end we all will win if we have enough patience and know when to stop !! by stop I mean if you think it’s taking big time there are other choices .. in extreme cases we have our citizenship some where …………………..
anyway you are a lucky guy Galactus ! now u got the card in hand ! please keep contributing to new comers to this forum / sufferer like me !! best wishes !!

 

[pradeep07]

Fresh PhDs may not have a higher chance of successful EA applications. I have seen very few of them on this board. There was one guy/gal’s application (GC_EB1, May 11 post) which got approved. In spite of being a fresh PhD I felt that (s)he deserved it; (s)he was very creative in handling the situation.

But where does it say that one needs a PhD + years of experience for EA (for that matter where does it say that you need a PhD)? I feel that we scientists, in our heads, assign excess merit to degrees and experience; USCIS officers, on the other hand, are looking for real achievement. Civ2ru ... your comments on this matter will be appreciated.

Moving on to a different subject: I agree, with kku, that lawyers try to be extra cautious, and discourage you from applying for EB1-EA. It has been my experience too, and for the same reason I went Pro Se.

I have also been told by the wife of a friend's friend, who worked many years at USCIS, that one appears more "EA" if they go Pro Se. Can one believe “wife of a friend's friend”? You decide.

Regards
Pradeep

 

[Galactus]

Well, you dont need so many years of experience or a PhD or such degrees. But, unless you are John Nash and have done your magnum opus FOR YOUR PHD, if gradschool experience is what your application is based on, not even MIT and Standford whizzes should qualify-- unless you pulled a John Nash. That is my point-- that they shouldnt qualify. You can get a PhD and 10 yrs experience and still not have done anything extraordinary to merit an EB-1. I object to the lack of qualification in the first place no matter the degree and experience. If they indeed had done something extraordinary, I applaud their being given an EB1. I am not an academic, and in fact the US academic shibboleth is anathema to me.... but I seriously doubt the merit of these fresh PhDs. Most often but not always, a fresh PhD who is postdocing or works at say, Intel, or MSR, is less qualified than a starting Asst Prof at an Ivy. The latter sod usually uses special handling EB-2 or at best NIW.

Appearing "Pro se" is possible; on the other hand, if one has extraodinary ability, more often than not, one can make tons of money, and so hire the best lawyers in the country I think the pro se thing happens because defensive minded lawyers push us to the wall.

 

[Galactus]

A poster on another thread http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=256464 who recently got his EA approved(Congrats, bro!) was kind enough to post his detailed credentials. Applying the narrow definitions INS uses, as described by the Miller Mayer article and other articles they refer, is very instructive, and illustrates something worrisome.

Item 1: Patents arent prizes like a Nobel, Turing, MacArthur etc. They have been clear about this many times. Even to claim patents as evidence, they want proof that the patents arent paperweight patents, but enforceable and vigorously protected, non-recent, valuable patents and have apparently disputed several patent cases.

2. NAS is what INS cites as an example for "membership". Most AACR active members could have gotten there on experential basis. With IEEE for example, elected Fellow would seem to matter, than being member or even senior member.

3. Citations arent articles about the individual's work per se. Support letters arent coverage of one's work.

4. The intent isnt the one-off or occassional peer review, but holding a preeminent position in the field, and hence a regular reviewer's or editor's role, or something like that, if I recall correctly. Basically, not something that could occur over time, ex officio.

5. 6. 7. Going by the credentials/cv he posted, the article indicates they have tossed out longer paper trails. [though I have no idea about his own research impact obviously]

9. Again, though I dont know the specifics, their intent is 500K or some much clearly disproportionate sum. Not something like 50% more than the usual. [ Hope our friend is lucky enough to be the former. And will freely donate of his largesse to liberal causes ]

If we go by all the hokum in the Miller Mayer article, we can raise all these questions. We should conclude that our friend should have been denied his EA. I am sure most of our cases are contestable like this, unless we walk into the room with a Nobel. And even Nobels have been gained on hyperbolic pretenses.

One possibility is that, this case rested entirely on peer referees. But, that cannot be sole basis, per the article(s). At least one referee was an Asst Prof, and may not be a doyen of the field, at least, not yet.

All of the above means, given that they have a "similar qualifications" norm, that if they pass A, they have to pass B, if B is similarly qualified, what on earth was INS doing, in denying all those cases, cited in those articles, most of which did table sane evidence?

I am not intending ad hominem savagery, and I dont begrudge our friend his GC; hell, they are going to give fence-jumpers the card some day, so why not some researcher? And cancer research is clearly NIW. But, for purposes of our elucidation, does INS actually do what it claims in its rules; they got to be lenient to all or tough with all. Where is the consistency? I just cant understand what is going on with their due diligence and process. I have been taken for a merry ride by INS and the lawyers.

 

[chatterjee1]

Presentation does play a big role in the approval. Having the necessary credentials AND being able to lay them out in black and white are both needed. I do not have a Phd. But then again, I am not a scientist, I am from finance and my requirements were presented and weighed in differently from most EA cases within the broad parameters of the 8 eligibility requirements.

On a side note, did USCIS give away EB1 visa #s to the other categories. Dont know what to make out of the current 485 fiasco.....

In my personal opinion there is no big deal in these categories as long as you get the GC SOONER!! In all of these categories, you have to prove that you are at the top level of expertise and working in a novel area created by you!! If you have EB1EA talent and a permanent position, EB1OR is a sure shot! In EB1OR you need to satisfy only 2 criteria where as 3 needed for EB1EA as well as in NIW (with some more complications.. like stay on the same national interest position for ever till you get GC and a huge issue being in EB2 category which won’t become current in next 2-3 years, I guess ) … personally I don’t get it why anyone want to put themselves on risk when they know there is a sure shot option? Well if you think your position is not permanent just don’t think about OR petition! That’s YOU!! how you are presenting your case to an attorney!! .. don’t expect much from them!! Sometimes they don’t recognize some of your excellent credentials .. they focused on some usual so so ones which invite RFEs …YOU are the person responsible to correct/direct your attorney in the right direction.. so commutation with attorney is must… above all it’s your luck plays a lot .. see my signature you will get how frustrated am I !! anyway it’s like playing gamble at Las Vegas ..play it without much expectations… at the end we all will win if we have enough patience and know when to stop !! by stop I mean if you think it’s taking big time there are other choices .. in extreme cases we have our citizenship some where …………………..
anyway you are a lucky guy Galactus ! now u got the card in hand ! please keep contributing to new comers to this forum / sufferer like me !! best wishes !!

 

[Galactus]

Pana and Chatterjee:

I agree with Pana that it is a bit like Vegas. Ne'er been there, nor want to ; but I get the idea. I am outraged because really good attorneys said a) OPR was a long shot for me b) EA even tougher; but from this forum and others, I actually gather that I had an overwhelmingly strong petition for either case! I could have been spared months of headache.

I admit I got lucky in the June surge. But the 4 years that went before were horrenduous. (And no, I am not lucky enough to have other citizenship.. it is not my country, if I am ostracized there.)

Presentation and fluff letters from friends aka peers, shouldnt play such a dominant role in the process. INS should know better, and educate themselves about different branches of research, if they want to evaluate "scholars" from all over the world! I am not an academic myself; indeed I am the anti-academic , so I didnt fit their slots either; I am just appalled that even well meaning attorneys were so dead wrong.

USCIS isnt allowed to give away EB1 quota to others. I am sure they gave away enough of them in June. If anything, there can only be a quesiton about ROW and they may have enough applications open for that too.

Pana: Note that if USCIS interprets the rules as "literally" as it is reputed to, then OPR is a tougher category to prove than EA. (not in terms of merit but in the nature of the evidence). Each item of the 6 must be international in nature. For EA, just meeting the merit requirements is enough. If USCIS went literal, Socrates, who never left Athens in all his life, would fail to qualify for an OPR visa. )

Lastly, I symphathize totally with what they are putting you through. Cant they at least file things properly, if they cannot read and comprehend our applications properly?

 

[chatterjee1]

I worked on my petition my self, both for O1 and Eb1EA. My attorney just put the packet together and yeah I had to pay him for that!!! I wasn't happy with the ay my case was presented and I had to fight to get it done the way I wanted it.

Whats everyone's take on proposed AILA lawsuit to revoke some of the approved 485s in the last few days in June, among the many other issues in their lawsuit? How abt explaining why EB1 numbers were being given away along with all the hoopla being made abt namecheck & recent approvals.

Pana and Chatterjee:

USCIS isnt allowed to give away EB1 quota to others. I am sure they gave away enough of them in June. If anything, there can only be a quesiton about ROW and they may have enough applications open for that too.

and comprehend our applications properly?

 

[pswami]

Hi all ,
From your experience, whats the deal with 1 month approvals for some on I485 verses 1 year of I485 aprovals in EB1 catagory.
You said it takes 7.5 months. I have seen people getting approval of I485 in 42 days too.

 

[Galactus]

Hi all ,
From your experience, whats the deal with 1 month approvals for some on I485 verses 1 year of I485 aprovals in EB1 catagory.
You said it takes 7.5 months. I have seen people getting approval of I485 in 42 days too.

7.5 months holds only if you filed concurrently, non PP, didnt have RFE bottlenecks etc. Times vary greatly. A 485 approval in 45 days to an approved 140, is good time, but not unique.

 

[pana]

lil bit off topic
To Galactus: ".....Vegas. Ne'er been there, nor want to ...." why ?
It's a cool place to hang out with your gf/wife/bf/husband/friends at least for one night ! u don't have to play any gamble ..just walk on the strips at night and watch some cool show like "circus de soil" .. don't think I am a broker ! please let me know after u came back !

 

[Galactus]

lil bit off topic
To Galactus: ".....Vegas. Ne'er been there, nor want to ...." why ?

lol.. good question. more than the no-gambling angle, I am just too old in the head for Vegas... Italy, Greece, Egypt and Macchu Picchu are more my cup of tea Come to think of it, I have never really traveled for pleasure in the US bar Niagara once... just considered my time in this country, one long biz trip due to all the turmoil I have faced, and not much history to visit in the US, it IS a young country.
Btw, I caught half a Cirque du soleil show somewhere, when it was traveling, just trying to recall where. Not sure if it is as good as the Vegas one.