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
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