EB1-EA RFE, help please!!!

[winter2002]

Hi,

I begin to work on RFE, but I still feel some trouble. Here is what RFE said:

about citation:
Published material: Provide evidence to establish the significance of the published material submitted about the alien’s work and how it has set the alien apart from others in the field as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field. Indicate the publication’s name; if it has local, national, or international circulation; how often it is printed; and the number of copies printed.

I provided:
[1] ISI search results (all 57 citation papers: tittle, author names, journal name, year, vol. pages)
[2] 10 citation papers including journal cover, content table, and highlight where my paper was citated.

question:
It is not difficult to do "Indicate the publication’s name; if it has local, national, or international circulation; how often it is printed; and the number of copies printed." Apart from that, I still have to look for someone to write reference letter about the rest of this part of RFE? I don't know if INS has seriously read all the reference letters because some letters have mentioned about that.

about original contributions:
Submit evidence to establish how the alien's work is considered original and how it has made a major contribution of significance to the field of BIOLOGY/CHEMISTRY compared to all others in the field.

question:
In which way can I compared to ALL OTHERS in the field?

 

[leroythelion]

Originally posted by winter2002
Re: Brian,



1st author for two of them. But I only showed INS a journal ranking with JACS in the top group but not the top in the field I searched. Wish INS knew JACS. But maybe there are many EB1 petitioners who have Nature/Science papers and then INS looks down on JACS.

winter

Nature and Science rarely publish chemistry papers (especially Nature). Your field is chemistry, not science. My own field is analytical chemistry. JACS almost never publishes analytical papers. We established my publishing record in journals specific to my field. This is done through the letters. If *you* tell the INS a certain journal is prestigous, it means nothing. If an established expert (with a 40-page CV) in your field does, then it means something. IMO, your publishing record is a no-brainer. It was just presented incorrectly.

Brian

 

[gc-despo]

Brian,

I have heard that among the no-labor-cert-required GC categories NIW is hardest, EB-1 EA is next, and EB-1 OR (company sponsored) is easiest to get approval. Is this really true, and in what sense is EB-1 OR easier than the other 2.

I ask you this since you appear to be an expert with these types of cases. Thanks!

 

[Alex Fisk]

Agree with this ranking

From what I've seen recently, definitely:
NIW - the toughest/most unpredictable,
EB1-EA - a bit more straightforward
(though not necessarily easier)
EB1-OR - much easier than either of the above
A top law firm that I've consulted suggested
NIW, I've declined, filed EB1-EA by myself (TSC)
and got approved with no RFE. (I've posted my
qualifications here previously.)
As to JACS, I'm afraid there has been a sort of
"grade inflation" there too: I've got 3 first-name
papers there last year only, and nobody thinks
it's such a big deal. Nature and Science still are
big deal. Incidentally, Nature does publish
chemistry papers, though it must be MAJOR.
BTW, almost all JACS manuscripts are handled
by Associate Editors, so socializing with Bard
(now Stang) might not be much help.

 

[leroythelion]

Re: Agree with this ranking

Originally posted by AlexandreShvartsburg
From what I've seen recently, definitely:
NIW - the toughest/most unpredictable,
EB1-EA - a bit more straightforward
(though not necessarily easier)
EB1-OR - much easier than either of the above

On paper, the NIW should be the easiest. Unfortunately, the lack of defined criteria (as in the EA) led to some abuse of this category. Right now, you are almost required to show extraordinary ability AND national interest. One attorney claims that 80% of cases are ultimately rejected. I don't know how true that stat is.

OR has a much lower threshold than EA. OR is employer sponsored and, depending on the reputation of the sponsor, this can make the reviewer feel a lot better about the application over a self-sponsored one.

Brian