Eb1-or i-140 rfe

pd_2004

Registered Users (C)
Hello everyone,

As some of you may recall from my earlier posts last year, I was considering NIW and EB1-OR. Late last year, I applied for both NIW (I-140 only) and then a little later EB1-OR (concurrent I-140 and 485), all at TSC. The good news is that NIW I-140 was approved. The bad news is that an RFE has been issued for the EB1-OR I-140 (Dec 24, 2009). The RFE contents (4 pages) are mostly similar to what I have seen in the forum. I am adding my case here as additional info, and would appreciate your thoughts on what criteria you think I should address. Here is the RFE:

The 1st page lists the 6 criteria and then says that just satisfying the criteria is insufficient, but that the evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary is recognized internationally.

1. USCIS acknowledges that I have met the criterion "Evidence of alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles..."

2. Major prizes and awards: The beneficiary was selected as a recipient of the xyz award and a best poster award. The beneficiary's receipt of award is not an award for his excellence, but rather, financial support for ongoing research. As to the poster award, this reflects normal routine of a researcher: researchers are to publish their findings at conferences. Additionally there was no evidence to establish the origin, purpose, significance and scope of each award.

3. Membership is associations requiring outstanding achievements: Initial evidence references membership in Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi and (a professional association). The beneficiary must show that the membership requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership. Provide minimum requirements and criteria, list number of current members, beneficiary's rank compared to other members, status held by the association in the international community,

4. Published material in professional publications: Claiming 37 citations. Mere reference to alien's work is insufficient. It must be primarily about the beneficiary.

5. Evidence as a judge: beneficiary submits evidence as peer-reviewers for xyz journals and his work on the editorial committee. In an occupation where judging is an inherent duty such as that of an instructor or researcher, simply performing one's duty is not evidence of international recognition. It must be demonstrated that beneficiary's outstanding recognition resulted in his selection to serve as judge.

6. Evidence of original contribution: Drs. x,y,z, have submitted letters that attest beneficiary's competence in research. While they reflect the results are useful and have contributed to the general pool, it does not demonstrate that beneficiary has been acknowledged by independent experts. Provide evidence to establish the significance of research and how it set him apart as an internationally recognized outstanding researcher compared to all others in his academic field.

Submit evidence that beneficiary has atleast 3 years of experience; evidence must be in form of letters from current and former employers and must include specific duties

Current employer must show ability to pay wages.

Must submit response within 30 days.


Much of what has been asked was part of the original submittal. Information about nature of awards were part of recommendation letters. (They are based on merit and not a regular research funding - maybe I should get letters from awarding institutions detailing that). Membership criteria were printed from the websites. I feel the argument about peer-reviewing as regular "duty" is baseless. For original contribution, one letter was sent from an independent referee which is stated in the letter itself. But USCIS refers to that person as someone whom I have worked with.

Any tips, suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks,
pd
 
and would appreciate your thoughts on what criteria you think I should address. It's probably best to address all of them

The 1st page lists the 6 criteria and then says that just satisfying the criteria is insufficient, but that the evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary is recognized internationally.That seems to be the uderlying problem the have with it, have you convincingly argued that you are at the top of your field?

1. USCIS acknowledges that I have met the criterion "Evidence of alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles..."Good

2. Major prizes and awards: The beneficiary was selected as a recipient of the xyz award and a best poster award. The beneficiary's receipt of award is not an award for his excellence, but rather, financial support for ongoing research.Can you proof this is not true and it is an award for excellence? As to the poster award, this reflects normal routine of a researcher: researchers are to publish their findings at conferences. Can you argue that this is not the case but that it was a prestigious award?Additionally there was no evidence to establish the origin, purpose, significance and scope of each award.If you can provide these criteria for the awards it may become obvious that the awards were merit based

3. Membership is associations requiring outstanding achievements: Initial evidence references membership in Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi and (a professional association). The beneficiary must show that the membership requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership. Provide minimum requirements and criteria, list number of current members, beneficiary's rank compared to other members, status held by the association in the international community, Unless you can prove that your membership is due to exceptional merit, i.e you cannot just become a member or you need to have achieved something that is significantly better than your peers your memberships won't hold much weight. Sigma Xi for instance only wants you to have 2 publications o become a member, this is not enough to proof that you are outstanding

4. Published material in professional publications: Claiming 37 citations. Mere reference to alien's work is insufficient. It must be primarily about the beneficiary.This criterion is not for your citations but to show that there have been articles published specifically about you or your work. The content of the article has to do more than just mention you. Can you show that the articles are mainly about you/your work?

5. Evidence as a judge: beneficiary submits evidence as peer-reviewers for xyz journals and his work on the editorial committee. In an occupation where judging is an inherent duty such as that of an instructor or researcher, simply performing one's duty is not evidence of international recognition. It must be demonstrated that beneficiary's outstanding recognition resulted in his selection to serve as judge.Can you show that you are asked more than others in your field to review? Can you get letters from editors stating that you are specifically asked to review because of your expertise?

6. Evidence of original contribution: Drs. x,y,z, have submitted letters that attest beneficiary's competence in research. While they reflect the results are useful and have contributed to the general pool, it does not demonstrate that beneficiary has been acknowledged by independent experts.Do you have multiple letters for independent experts? Provide evidence to establish the significance of research and how it set him apart as an internationally recognized outstanding researcher compared to all others in his academic field.You can do thos by getting letters from independent experts claiming so or you could use other proof (articles, proof that your works has made an impact)

Submit evidence that beneficiary has atleast 3 years of experience; evidence must be in form of letters from current and former employers and must include specific duties This speaks for itself

Current employer must show ability to pay wages.This speaks for itself

Must submit response within 30 days.


Much of what has been asked was part of the original submittal.Maybe, however they did not find it persuasive. Your best recourse is to restate your original submittal, specifically answering the RFE while doing so. Additional evidence for each point will help Information about nature of awards were part of recommendation letters. (They are based on merit and not a regular research funding - maybe I should get letters from awarding institutions detailing that) Yes that would be a good idea. Membership criteria were printed from the websites.See above I feel the argument about peer-reviewing as regular "duty" is baseless.Not really, peer reviewing is part of science, you have to proof that you are exceptional in this For original contribution, one letter was sent from an independent referee which is stated in the letter itself. But USCIS refers to that person as someone whom I have worked with.then you should rebut this, having more letters from independent referees will bolster your case as will additional information on how you made original contributions
 
Thanks a lot for your guidance and comments kariboo.

For sigma Xi membership, that maybe true for associate membership. Is it also true for full membership? In any case, doesn't it need nomination and approval? If this is not strong enough as you say then I am not able to think of a way how I can use this for my case. Out of curiosity, what are those associations that give membership because you are exceptional?

I will have to dig through the citations to see if anyone discussed at length. If I remember correctly, most of them were bibliographic/footnote citations as USCIS calls it. So I don't think this will help my case.. How else can I approach this? Would it be useful if I contact the authors and see if the articles made an influence in their work and then get a letter from them? Would that help?

For evidence as judge, I will try to get letters from the editors. How do we prove that I was asked more than others to review? The editors themselves should address this too, correct?

I agree that reviewing is part of science and research. But I do not follow how reviewing is "inherent duty" (in terms of the word that USCIS uses). You get called upon by editors only because they think you are an expert or someone qualified to evaluate the manuscript. So while it is part of science, I find it difficult to call it as a "duty". We could still do good research without "reviewing" a manuscript for publication, isn't it? I am doubtful if the editor would call someone to review an article, if they did not think that the person is qualified, particularly if it is a reputable journal.

I had two letters from independent referees. USCIS mistook one of it to be as someone I had worked with before. There was no mention of the other in the RFE. Like you said, we will address this in the rebuttal. And also try to get some more independent letters.


Thanks again,
pd
 
This from another USCIS decision:http://www.uscis.gov/err/B2 - Alien...ecisions_Issued_in_2009/Sep012009_01B2203.pdf

This petitioner initially submitted a certificate from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society,
which confirmed that the petitioner was an elected member of the organization in 2007. The
petitioner also provided his membership card, which indicated that he is a full member. A page from
the Sigma Xi website was also submitted, indicating that a full member must have "shown
noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in a field of pure or applied science." Further,
the web page explained that a "noteworthy achievement must be evidenced by publication as a first
author on two articles published in a refereed journal, patents, written reports or a thesis or
dissertation."
The director, in his RFE, found that outstanding achievement was not required for membership in
Sigma Xi. h his WE, the director asked for any additional evidence that would demonstrate the
petitioner belonged to an organization which required outstanding achievements of its members.
The petitioner did not further claim that he was eligible for this criterion in response to the RFE or
on appeal, nor did he provide any additional evidence for this criterion following his initial
submission. As such, in his decision, the director found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence
to establish Sigman Xi requires outstanding achievements for its members, as judged by recognized
national or international experts in their fields. We agree with the director, finding also that the
record lacks the evidence necessary to satisfy this criterion.
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the petitioner must
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum
education or experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues,
do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements.
Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation.
The record lacks evidence to establish that outstanding achievements are required for membership in
Sigma Xi. For example, full members of Sigma Xi are required to demonstrate a noteworthy
achievement, which can include first authoring two articles including a dissertation or thesis. Such a
requirement is not an outstanding achievement as many scientists are required to publish articles
either in order to attain their academic degrees or as part of their employment. In addition, the
publication of articles is also inherent to the field of science, and mere publication is not consistent
with national or international acclaim. Moreover, the petitioner failed to show that his membership
in Sigma Xi was judged by recognized national or international experts in the field.
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.
 
As to reviewing:http://www.uscis.gov/err/B2 - Alien...ecisions_Issued_in_2009/Aug252009_02B2203.pdf

We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to
review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and, by itself, is not indicative of or
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner
apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that
credits a small group of elite reviewers, received independent requests from a substantial number of
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the
petitioner meets this criterion.

As to published material about the petitioner

This comes back a lot:
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fiom a local publication. Some
newspapers, such as the Nav York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2
 
Thanks a lot for your guidance and comments kariboo.

For sigma Xi membership, that maybe true for associate membership. Is it also true for full membership? In any case, doesn't it need nomination and approval? Yes, but it doesn't require exceptional ability to be nominated. Also it doesn't use prominent scientist in the fiels to approve or deny an application If this is not strong enough as you say then I am not able to think of a way how I can use this for my case. Out of curiosity, what are those associations that give membership because you are exceptional? I am not sure for your field but in physics it would for instance be an APS fellowship or being elected to the national academy of sciences.

I will have to dig through the citations to see if anyone discussed at length. If I remember correctly, most of them were bibliographic/footnote citations as USCIS calls it. Then they would not fall under this criterion , it has to be articles written about you in internationally reputable magazines/newspapers So I don't think this will help my case.. How else can I approach this? Would it be useful if I contact the authors and see if the articles made an influence in their work and then get a letter from them?that would bolster your case as to making an impact in the field or original contributions Would that help?

For evidence as judge, I will try to get letters from the editors. How do we prove that I was asked more than others to review? The editors themselves should address this too, correct?Yes, if they can write that they use you specifically for your expertise not just because you are 'a scientist in your field' or if you are only one of few experts a magazine uses for review. The more the better for this

I agree that reviewing is part of science and research. But I do not follow how reviewing is "inherent duty" (in terms of the word that USCIS uses). You get called upon by editors only because they think you are an expert or someone qualified to evaluate the manuscript. So while it is part of science, I find it difficult to call it as a "duty". We could still do good research without "reviewing" a manuscript for publication, isn't it? I am doubtful if the editor would call someone to review an article, if they did not think that the person is qualified, particularly if it is a reputable journal.As far as I read it USCIS uses this term to say that reviewing is inherent in the peer review process / science and therefore not an expression of exceptional ability in the field. The rest is semantics and I don't think you would want to get into that with them:D

I had two letters from independent referees. USCIS mistook one of it to be as someone I had worked with before. There was no mention of the other in the RFE. Like you said, we will address this in the rebuttal. And also try to get some more independent letters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for all the detailed responses and copies of the USCIS decisions. I will read through those. Where do we find those decisions? Is there a link that takes us to the decisions and their reasoning ?

Thanks.
 
1. Good... one down atleast 2 more to go...

2. What is the other award?? poster award does not count. Can you show that the other award that you received is from a sizable number of applicants. say one award for 1000 applicants from around the world. If so, get letter from the awards committee stating the same. If you cannot then, you just have to accept the IO's claim


3. Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi etc used to be considered under memberships long time back not anymore...THe kind of memberships that they are looking are atleast Society Fellowship memberships kind ( Say American Ceramic Society Fellow is a good award/membership not student memberships). Again this is going to be a tough sell with the IO
,

4. Published material using citations. If you do not have citations that basically discussing your research and how it kind of helped them in their research then it is of not much use. Again, you can get letters from the authors who cited your work mentioning how it helped them. Also if the citations are in high impact factor journals like science and nature, try projecting that too saying that my work has been utilized/cited by researchers in high impact factor journals.

5. Evidence as a judge: You have to get more letter and print invitation emails that you got. In the letters, ask the editor to mention that you were selected to review the submitted manuscript because of your international recognition in the field.

6. Evidence of original contribution:
Pick lines from the letters and include in the cover letter. Pick lines that says that you contributed this and that etc...Since it is a OR application, your employer is filing. Mention that you have already contributed extensively to the project developing x, y, z...mention abt the projects ( funding source like DOE, DoD etc) that you worked and let them know that you worked in such high impact/important projects because of your expertise in the field and not by fluke.

Self explanatory for 3 yrs experience and ability to pay wages by the employer.

Regards,
Sulpha
 
EB-1 Assessment

I am working as since 2 years in the US and also Post doc 1 year in NZL with a P.hD in Animal sciences from NZL

I have 11 publications 7 as author and 4 co author
around 25 citations

4 gold medals in India during her Masters, and Top 5% in her Univ P.hd and Letters from Professor in NZL stating that stating as she is Top 10 researchers in the Univ history.

The univ is very well reputed.

I have 3 more upcoming publications and also her P.hD works have been extended by other researchers.

Can someone please, let me know how much possibility has for EB1-EA or EB1 OR

TIA
Regards.
 
I am working as since 2 years in the US As what? and also Post doc 1 year in NZL with a P.hD in Animal sciences from NZL

I have 11 publications 7 as author and 4 co author
around 25 citations Not great, not the worst

4 gold medals in India during her Mastersprobably not very convincing, but may depend on what the medals were for and how many people apply,. Do the medals have international acclaim? , and Top 5% in her Univ P.hdNot very convincing, for EB1 you have to prove you are at the top % of your field as a whole, not students and Letters from Professor in NZL stating that stating as she is Top 10 researchers in the Univ history MAy be good if you can back that up by evidence, as in what have you achieved and how has that made a significant impact on your field.

The univ is very well reputed. not relevant

I have 3 more upcoming publications not relevant, they look at how much of your work has been cited or how it has made an impact, npublished materials carry little weightand also her P.hD works have been extended by other researchers.Not sure what you mean by that

Can someone please, let me know how much possibility has for EB1-EA or EB1 OR

Well for EB1A these are the criteria. You must meet at least 3

1. Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Maybe your medals qualify for this

2. Membership in associations in the field that demand outstanding achievement of their members.You didn't mention this

3. Published material about the alien.You didn;t mention this. Citations don't count

4. Evidence that the alien is a judge of the work of others in the field.You didn't mention this

5. Evidence of the aliens original contributions of major significance to the field.Your publications and referees may be enough, not enough information at the moment. They very much emphasize that you must prove that you have made a major impact. It has to be clearly above and beyond what most scientist achieve

6. Authorship of scholarly articles.Your publications may be enough

7. Display of the alien's work at artistic exhibition or showcases.No

8. Evidence the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation.You don't mention this

9. Evidence that the alien commands high remuneration in relation to other in the fields.You don't mention this

10. Evidence of commercial success in the performing arts.No

So it would depend on how well you can argue your case.
 
Thank you Kariboo

I am working as Post doc scientist in the US.

three journals published and cited my information

did not judge other people's work

Please let me know if you need more information
 
You are welcome. I think it is best if you talk to an attorney about your case and give him all the information you have available. He will be the best judge to see if you are eligible.

I gave the requirements so you could for yourself decide if you fit at least 3 of the requirements, The standards for Eb1A are high and to me it seems like you are at the beginning of your career. This often (but not always) means that EB1A will be difficult if not impossible. Your citations are very low. This does not mean you are ineligible but you would have to proof in a different way that you have made significant impact in your field.

I am not an attorney so don't take my word for it, and talk to a real attorney about this. I know you can in principle file on your own, however I believe that using a competent immigration attorney will increase your chances since they know the system so much better. The most important part of any application is the way you defend your case. This is difficult if you do it for the first time and if the language is not your primary one.
 
thanks Sulpha.

The other award was from a local section of a professional association which is open to students and post-docs.

The poster award was at a national conference of a professional association (with international membership). The poster was open to anyone (not just students). It is definitely not 1000 applicants...probably in the 20 or 30s. I have to find out the exact count. Does this stand any chance if I get a letter from the association?

From what all of you are saying, it looks like I may have to focus more on getting letters from editors and hopefully from some who cited my work to have a better chance.

Working on it now...thanks.

Could anyone send a sample of the editor letter?

Thanks.
1. Good... one down atleast 2 more to go...

2. What is the other award?? poster award does not count. Can you show that the other award that you received is from a sizable number of applicants. say one award for 1000 applicants from around the world. If so, get letter from the awards committee stating the same. If you cannot then, you just have to accept the IO's claim


Regards,
Sulpha
 
Awards as Original Contributions

HI All,

Can awards like 1. Postdoctoral Fellowships (though hard to get, USCIS doesn't
accepts it for Awards criteria)
2. Best poster/Travel Awards at an international conference
3. Institutional Research Excellence
be used in support of recognition for the "Original contributions" criteria in addition to the reco letters....

Instead of claiming the above (atleast the #1) for the awards criteria, I would like to claim these for "Original contributions" to make it strong.

Any ideas on whether or not we can do this way

Thanks a lot
Kasina
 
Top