EB1-EA RFE from VSC

A

alexk

Registered Users (C)
After waiting a word from BCIS I received a RFE stating that submitted evidence does not establish that the beneficiary qualifies for E1-1 classification.
The main problem they found was with recommendation letters. I submitted 7 letters- 4 from USA and 3 from Canada, Germany and Sweden. They post ridiculous requirement “Is beneficiary considered to be at the same level as the authors of the letters of recommendation?” those who gave me letters are professors, section chiefs and a director of an institute.
On the other hand I presented inventions, on which I am a co-author and 19 publications out of which I am on 11 is first author. These publications are in Top Journals, including Journal of Experimental Medicine and Proceedings of National Academy of Science . They did give no credit for that. Instead they said that science if a collaborative effort and I have to demonstrate that I was a principal inventor/investigator on those projects.
I did self petition and used approved cases as an example.
Any comments?
 
got close to this in the same category

Hey AlexK,

I ve got in principle the same message on mine EA case.
I have couple of patents, 10 reccomendation letters
from established figures, however this was not enough
(apparently)
 
Letters of recommendation are important, but not sufficient for EB1-EA. You must provide hard and convincing evidences, but not simply in a CV format. You can overcome the RFE, by demonstrating the importance of your research, journal papers, citations, patents, etc. You can also ask the referees to write other letters stating that you are indeed one of the top people in your field.
 
Dear Topew,

I did it pretty much carefully and had everything lined up logically. I have several inventions, that were filed by my lab chief. My name is the second. As a proof that I am major contributor to the invention I presented a first author (my name first) paper in top journal describing the invention . In addition I presented letters from collaborators, stating that I am a major contributor to the invention and describing how extraordinary I am and how important my inventions are. Additionally I add to the list several inventions supported by publications where I am just a co-author.
So, what do I get in response:
The beneficiary has gained a certain amount of recognition among his peers and the scientific community in general. The inventions in which he has been INVOLVED are noted along with his publications, invitations as a speaker, poster presentations, and contributions to his field. However, it must be noted that he is NOT NAMED as the principal inventor but rather is named among several other individuals. The same applies to his poster presentations, publications, etc. While it is noted thart scientific research is often a collaborative effort, it must be shown that the beneficiary stands out amongst his peers and has reached the very top of the field.
 
Originally posted by alexk
After waiting a word from BCIS I received a RFE stating that submitted evidence does not establish that the beneficiary qualifies for E1-1 classification.
The main problem they found was with recommendation letters. I submitted 7 letters- 4 from USA and 3 from Canada, Germany and Sweden. They post ridiculous requirement “Is beneficiary considered to be at the same level as the authors of the letters of recommendation?” those who gave me letters are professors, section chiefs and a director of an institute.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how ridiculous such a requirement is. The bar on EA is set pretty high. You've obviously read this:
"...extraordinary ability in the sciences [...] which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." That sorta does look like big school professor level.

On the other hand I presented inventions, on which I am a co-author and 19 publications out of which I am on 11 is first author. These publications are in Top Journals, including Journal of Experimental Medicine and Proceedings of National Academy of Science . They did give no credit for that. Instead they said that science if a collaborative effort and I have to demonstrate that I was a principal inventor/investigator on those projects.
I did self petition and used approved cases as an example.
Any comments?
Click to expand...

Well, you could have your supervisors write additional letters detailing your contribution and level of participation in each publication, however if they really meant that you must be a PI, you would have to produce grant paperwork showing so. Did you submit any other evidence, besides letters and publications?
 
I fully agree that the requirements are really high. To meet them you work hard, make discoveries, publish them, report on the meetings, get awards. People cite your work in their publications, recognize you at the meetings and give you a nice recommendations to proceed with your career. But you are still a postdoc. It does not matter how extraordinary you are - to get on professor’s level you need a green card. May be there are few that could do it, but I do not know a single one.

Anyway, during 15 months that I was waiting for I-140 review I got additional award and few first author publications in very good journals. I am sure that I will get more experts on board with recommendation letters. And I will get a letter from my supervisor stating that I was a principle inventor on 3 inventions out of 6.

By the way I claimed few more criteria – publications about my invention in national and international news media, and a letter from government agency that I was employed in critical capacity. Did not get the credit.

I guess letters were not sweet enough for them.
 
Today I had a friendly chat with a BCIS lady.
Appearently, if you are the first author on a paper means nothing for them. Recommendation letters should specifically state that first authorship means major contribution to a project. Unless you are a single auther at all.
If you say it yourself in petition - they do not beleive. I think that citation index for Journals is also meaningless for them (I provided impact factor for the journals where I published papers). I think that recommendation letters also have to state same things. And lady recommended that more times it will be repeated among the letters, better.
 
Originally posted by alexk
Today I had a friendly chat with a BCIS lady.
Appearently, if you are the first author on a paper means nothing for them. Recommendation letters should specifically state that first authorship means major contribution to a project.
Click to expand...

This statement is so important!!! You cannot assume the reviewer will know that first author means everything in a publication. If he reviews 10 a day, all ten have to tell him that being first author is important. If it does not state that in a letter by an expert, he *cannot* assume it is so. This is why every piece of evidence has to be addressed in the letters. Once again, it is rare that a successful case does revolve around the letters.

Brian
 
Attached is the copy of explanation of publications that I submitted for a successful I-140 for EB1-EA. Please keep in mind that this was one of the 8 criteria for which I submitted the evidence for. In the letters of recommendations from International Researchers, I had them emphasize on the importance of my research which I published in these papers, and also that my work was critical to the success of the research project, and that I was the main contributor. They didn't mention that I was the first author. In the cover letter, I myself explained that a particular researcher was talking about the research which I presented in particular papers.

Hope this helps.

-P
 
Dear pkafir,

Thank you for the very helpful information.

My I-140 details: EB-1A, VSC

ND April 24, 2002
RFE July 31, 2003

I expect to collect more reference letters during August and resubmit in late August - beginning September.
 
Got RFE physically... posted something similar in another thread.
VSC, RD APril 26, 2002
RFE August,15th, 2003
"If you are willing to change your request to second-preference " advanced-degree professional" classification with a national-interest waiver, we are willing to approve the petition for that classification, with no additional evidence of any kind. Such a change would produce no disadvantage to the beneficiary in his pursuit of permanent resident status. Please let us knowwhether you are willing to change your request to second-preference advance degree professional."
Sounds to me like we just need to let them know that we are willing to demote from EA to NIW and everything will be dandy. However, do we need to send a new I- 140 or just a letter Another thing,
they sent it to my husband old job and he does not officially work there anymore. We changed the petition from university to self -petition long time ago and VSC aknowledged that and said it is cool but at the end they still messed up. Surprise, surprise I am not sure how to address that issue when we respond to RFE. Anyone has similar case or any suggestions? Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top