EB1-EA criteria

[irisyue]

Hello fellows,

Please comment on my credentials for EB1-EA (or NIW):

1. 10 journal papers. 6 first author. 6 in Chinese (3 first author); 4 in English (3 first author; one 1st author paper on the very top journal in the field)

2. 1 conference proceedings, co-author. I plan not to separate it from other publications.

3. Citations 31 + 10 + 5 + 8 + 6 + 1 + 3. My most important paper, the one on the top journal of the field, came out this March so there's no formal citation yet.

4. Grant: one NSF travel grant for an international conference (in China) where I gave a talk, and submitted a one-page report afterwards. I plan to mention this as support for other points (like NSF recognizes the importance of my work), instead of making it an 'award'. There's another domestic travel support that is even more minor.

5. Invited talks: 10; invited poster: 1

6. Contributed talks/posters: 15. (a few of them are rather brief but I won't distinguish)

7. There are several nice comments from peer reviewers on my two recent publications, including "this is an important piece of work and should be published soon", "this is a very interesting paper..."

8. One recent paper documents a software package I developed; the package is in operational use at a national lab (dealing with one pretty important step in automated experiments)

9. Three researchers (from Japan/Vietnam, Iran?, US) emailed me about the work that later became my 'most important' paper. It's my PhD thesis (at Stanford). They asked me questions, requested my thesis, and suggested they were trying to use my model. They are not notable scientists.

10. My name appears in the 'Acknowledgment' of 4 papers.

11. Acting as peer reviewer: 3 journals for 3 papers, including the best journal in my field. In addition, I'm organizing a session and chairing another session for a big conference, so I can say reviewed (at least less seriously) 5-10 abstracts/manuscripts for the sessions. One professor asked me to write comments on a published paper of his and I wrote a detailed review (so this is informal review compared to peer review invitations).

12. Organized one session and chaired another session for the main disciplinary meeting (this july); co-chaired a session on an international conference (in China).

13. Attended 5 workshops/short courses.

14. I'll get one letter from Stanford and one from University of Chicago (my adviser, supervisor), a third from UPenn (a buddy). Hoping to get letters from one or two national labs. Planning to ask one European professor who reviewed my paper. For at least 3 letters the writers have no visible personal connection with me.

Please comment! I don't feel like sending money to a lawyer. How useful is a lawyer?

thanks!

 

[embolism]

Letters: Agree with Stanford, U of Chicago, U Penn. If you know of any companies using your product or you are using their product - try to get one from that company (like I am a physician, got letter from a drug company since their drug was used in 2 core research projects). Also get letters from Journal editors (I got a letter from one of editors of a journal - BLOOD). One of your letters should praise (most of the letter) your most important publication. I sent around 8 letters with 5 no connection and 3 connected (one company VP letter, one journal editor, one letter from unrelated professor describing importance of my most imp publication). More letters from the ones who don't know you (independent referees) its better. I could have done it by myself, however used attorney's help and avoided all the headache of filing, etc (since time is an issue, working 10-11 hrs straight/day). The attorney was very useful in composing the letters (by the far the best use) and also composing the cover letter. Of course they take care of filing, etc. I used services of Stephen Jeffries, NYC - however any good attorney whom you are familiar with and has a reputation should be good. Good luck.

 

[Animalia]

Hi embolism can you post your credentials and which ones did you claim?

 

[CalGreenCard]

I used services of Stephen Jeffries, NYC...

I retained the services of Jeffries a few years back. Working with his firm was a bit of a mixed bag. He got my EB1 approved without an RFE but on the other hand my NIW was denied after an RFE. I think he's good at preparing the basic EB1 case but not so good at the little details that keep clients happy. Getting him to send me a copy of a receipt notice was like pulling teeth--I think there were some receipt notices that never did turn up. He also lost one receipt notice entirely and it was fortunate that by that point I had a copy. He isn't good at keeping clients informed as to the progress of their case. I also wanted to file I-485 concurrently and wanted advice as to whether to file the I-485 with the EB1 or the NIW--he referred this decision to his paralegal who simply wasn't up to the task of providing good advice in this area.

Bottom line--when it comes to the basic EB1 case he knows what he's doing but he is lacking in a great deal of the client service that is necessary to provide a smooth, satisfactory client experience.

 

[NIW_help]

1. 10 journal papers. 6 first author. 6 in Chinese (3 first author); 4 in English (3 first author; one 1st author paper on the very top journal in the field)

Are the Chinese ones international journal? If so that is great. For EB1 the importance is on international recognition.

2. 1 conference proceedings, co-author. I plan not to separate it from other publications.

Fine.

3. Citations 31 + 10 + 5 + 8 + 6 + 1 + 3. My most important paper, the one on the top journal of the field, came out this March so there's no formal citation yet.

It is really solid proof that you work is well recognized.

4. Grant: one NSF travel grant for an international conference (in China) where I gave a talk, and submitted a one-page report afterwards. I plan to mention this as support for other points (like NSF recognizes the importance of my work), instead of making it an 'award'. There's another domestic travel support that is even more minor.

Sorry to disappoint you. but travel grants are not awards. play low profile on this one.

5. Invited talks: 10; invited poster: 1

6. Contributed talks/posters: 15. (a few of them are rather brief but I won't distinguish)

7. There are several nice comments from peer reviewers on my two recent publications, including "this is an important piece of work and should be published soon", "this is a very interesting paper..."

Document every thing clearly.

8. One recent paper documents a software package I developed; the package is in operational use at a national lab (dealing with one pretty important step in automated experiments)

can you get a letter supporting your claim? It will add weight.

9. Three researchers (from Japan/Vietnam, Iran?, US) emailed me about the work that later became my 'most important' paper. It's my PhD thesis (at Stanford). They asked me questions, requested my thesis, and suggested they were trying to use my model. They are not notable scientists.

It is not important that these people are not so big/reputed. Use them to show that your work has already impacted a wide variety of audience.

14. I'll get one letter from Stanford and one from University of Chicago (my adviser, supervisor), a third from UPenn (a buddy). Hoping to get letters from one or two national labs. Planning to ask one European professor who reviewed my paper. For at least 3 letters the writers have no visible personal connection with me.

If possible try to get few more to cement you case. More reference letters always help. around 8-10 will surely be very valuable compared to 4-6.

Please comment! I don't feel like sending money to a lawyer. How useful is a lawyer?

they are more valuable than you time.
good luck

 

[CalGreenCard]

If possible try to get few more to cement you case. More reference letters always help. around 8-10 will surely be very valuable compared to 4-6.

Jeffries explained to me--and I think he was right on this--that these should be seen more as referee letters and not reference letters. A reference often comes from someone who knows you professionally, has come to like you professionally and perhaps personally, and is no longer completely unbiased. That lack of objectivity can be a problem in an EB1 case. The letters are ideally written by referees who do not know you and can therefore be completely objective.

 

[CalGreenCard]

Hello fellows,

Please comment on my credentials for EB1-EA (or NIW):

...

Please comment! I don't feel like sending money to a lawyer. How useful is a lawyer?

thanks!

The reason for retaining a lawyer in an EB1 case--for someone with a PhD background--is that a lawyer knows how to present the case to a USCIS officer who has no formal education in the EB1's field in such a way that the applicant is portrayed as extraordinarily smart in their field. A lot of PhD's are extremely brilliant but they also tend to be understated because they spend all their time with other PhD's where that brilliance isn't necessarily as impressive as it might be compared to the general population.

If you say you have a Stanford PhD, for example, the lawyer may ask for evidence as to how many people applied to the PhD program, how many were accepted, and how many graduated--and then cite this as evidence of how highly competitive things are. If you say you have published in the top journal in your field, the lawyer may ask for evidence of the journal's circulation, etc.

I do think that people prepare these cases on their own successfully but personally I'd retain an attorney. When you retain an attorney, the attorney opens a file and begins building a case. If the attorney feels you don't qualify yet, the attorney may ask to wait a few months and see if new evidence comes in--new papers accepted, new citations, etc--which would make your case stronger. All you need to do is, as you gather new evidence, to send copies to the attorney. The attorney takes care of the details of building the case. These cases are complex and if you do it yourself I think it would take a lot of time. If you let the attorney build the case you can focus your own energies on building your career which is what you should be doing.