Dear All,
It was so depressing to just now learn that my EB1-EA I-140 got denied at NSC after responding to RFE. I filed through a lawyer. We submitted the RFE materials on 20th and the fax that my lawyer recieved today shows that the denial decision was made on Feb 22. It is really depressing and shocking. These are some excerpts from the denial notice.
The record reflects that the petitioner is currently employed as a faculty research associate and is likely to continue working as such the area of expertise. The remaining issue is whether the evidence establishes that the petitioner meets the regulatory definition of and criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability. The evidence of record does not establish the alien qualified under the regulatory standards and the petition will be denied on that ground.
The record shows that the petitioner’s area of expertise is the combined field of molecular virology and veterinary medical science. The documents submitted as initial evidence include reference letters written by peers and colleagues, seven of which were written by those who have not worked with him or and personally familiar with him. The records also shows evidence that petitioner has reviewed manuscripts assigned by editorial staff of scientific journals and that he himself has been published and that attended conferences, in his field. The record also shows that the petitioner has won numerous academic accolades at the graduate and undergraduate levels in both the United States and in India, this was further underscored by a printout from an internet search performed on November 15, 2006 at google.com, a search which resulted in showing predominately articles relating the petitioner’s receiving these accolades.
The service did not consider this evidence to be sufficient to warrant a favorable decision and issued correspondence to the petitioner on November 30, 2006, requesting additional evidence. In a response received on Feb. 20, 2007, the petitioner submitted via counsel a cover letter plus additional evidence, including published articles and five more letters of support and to support this petition, which were incorporated into the record.
It is readily apparent that the petitioner is a highly qualified researcher whose work is certainly valuable. The record shows that he has several favorable cited published articles, has participated in conferences and the peers-review process, and that his expertise has been sought by other, but the petitioner has not presented evidence of receipt of a major international award. In the alternative, the record does show evidence of international acclaim in form of published articles and judging the work of other, which is short of the requisite three of the regulatory criteria. C.F.F. 204.5(h)(3).
The service acknowledges opinions presented in many letters written expressly for this proceedings, but these do not overcome the lack of documentary evidence of sustained acclaim. In Matter of Chawathe (USCIS adopted decision, January 11, 2006), the service reaffirmed that C.F.R 204 5(h)(3) requires, “specific objective evidence be submitted to demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability”. The Service will also note that the record does show that the petitioner has won numerous academic accolades, but as impressive as this catalogue of academic recognition is, it is not comparable to awards won in competition that would have included veterans in his field, and therefore cannot be considered sufficient evidence.
As stated in Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 935,955 (………..) it was “Congress” intent to reserve this category to ‘that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor”. Based on the evidence of record, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner, through evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, is recognized as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. C.F.E…… However, the record does show amble evidence indicative that the petitioner may have eligibility under another classification.
The burden of proof in these proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. In this case the alien petitioner has not sustained that burden.
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
I do not know what to say. My lawyer did not know about e-filing of I-140 till I told her (after I came to know from this forum). I wanted to know (from Madgu-gc2005 and others) from all of you if I could refile my I-140 again by efiling. Will the decision at NSC affect this new petition? Do ALL efiled cases go to TSC? Please give your valuable suggestions.
It was so depressing to just now learn that my EB1-EA I-140 got denied at NSC after responding to RFE. I filed through a lawyer. We submitted the RFE materials on 20th and the fax that my lawyer recieved today shows that the denial decision was made on Feb 22. It is really depressing and shocking. These are some excerpts from the denial notice.
The record reflects that the petitioner is currently employed as a faculty research associate and is likely to continue working as such the area of expertise. The remaining issue is whether the evidence establishes that the petitioner meets the regulatory definition of and criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability. The evidence of record does not establish the alien qualified under the regulatory standards and the petition will be denied on that ground.
The record shows that the petitioner’s area of expertise is the combined field of molecular virology and veterinary medical science. The documents submitted as initial evidence include reference letters written by peers and colleagues, seven of which were written by those who have not worked with him or and personally familiar with him. The records also shows evidence that petitioner has reviewed manuscripts assigned by editorial staff of scientific journals and that he himself has been published and that attended conferences, in his field. The record also shows that the petitioner has won numerous academic accolades at the graduate and undergraduate levels in both the United States and in India, this was further underscored by a printout from an internet search performed on November 15, 2006 at google.com, a search which resulted in showing predominately articles relating the petitioner’s receiving these accolades.
The service did not consider this evidence to be sufficient to warrant a favorable decision and issued correspondence to the petitioner on November 30, 2006, requesting additional evidence. In a response received on Feb. 20, 2007, the petitioner submitted via counsel a cover letter plus additional evidence, including published articles and five more letters of support and to support this petition, which were incorporated into the record.
It is readily apparent that the petitioner is a highly qualified researcher whose work is certainly valuable. The record shows that he has several favorable cited published articles, has participated in conferences and the peers-review process, and that his expertise has been sought by other, but the petitioner has not presented evidence of receipt of a major international award. In the alternative, the record does show evidence of international acclaim in form of published articles and judging the work of other, which is short of the requisite three of the regulatory criteria. C.F.F. 204.5(h)(3).
The service acknowledges opinions presented in many letters written expressly for this proceedings, but these do not overcome the lack of documentary evidence of sustained acclaim. In Matter of Chawathe (USCIS adopted decision, January 11, 2006), the service reaffirmed that C.F.R 204 5(h)(3) requires, “specific objective evidence be submitted to demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability”. The Service will also note that the record does show that the petitioner has won numerous academic accolades, but as impressive as this catalogue of academic recognition is, it is not comparable to awards won in competition that would have included veterans in his field, and therefore cannot be considered sufficient evidence.
As stated in Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 935,955 (………..) it was “Congress” intent to reserve this category to ‘that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor”. Based on the evidence of record, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner, through evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, is recognized as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. C.F.E…… However, the record does show amble evidence indicative that the petitioner may have eligibility under another classification.
The burden of proof in these proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. In this case the alien petitioner has not sustained that burden.
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
I do not know what to say. My lawyer did not know about e-filing of I-140 till I told her (after I came to know from this forum). I wanted to know (from Madgu-gc2005 and others) from all of you if I could refile my I-140 again by efiling. Will the decision at NSC affect this new petition? Do ALL efiled cases go to TSC? Please give your valuable suggestions.
. Was there something wrong with your cover letter? I understand that they don't take into account graduate fellowships, but why didn't they mentioned the other awards you got. From their denial letter I thought that you only claimed the student awards.