EB1A RFE help

Y

yellow_tim

Registered Users (C)
My case: NSC Filing date: April 2004.
(1) Ph.D. in Mechanical engineering
(2) 18 Journal publications, many conference proceedings.
(3) Reviewed for Journals 7 seven times in the past five years.
(4) Now working on two DOE projects in a famous university as a scientist.
(5) Recieved a famous Post-doctoral fellowship.
(6) Citation is little.

I just got the RFE for my EB1A (EA). I was aksed to provide everything .
(1)To provide the selection criteria for a reviewer.
(2)To provide evidience as a leading role in a distinguished institution.
(3)To provide the importance of the award, selection criteria etc.
(4)To provide evalution from experts outside my circle or something other than
recommendation letters.

Any suggestion, particularly for (2) and (4) will be appreciated very much.
 
yellow_tim said:
My case: NSC Filing date: April 2004.
(1) Ph.D. in Mechanical engineering
(2) 18 Journal publications, many conference proceedings.
(3) Reviewed for Journals 7 seven times in the past five years.
(4) Now working on two DOE projects in a famous university as a scientist.
(5) Recieved a famous Post-doctoral fellowship.
(6) Citation is little.

I just got the RFE for my EB1A (EA). I was aksed to provide everything .
(1)To provide the selection criteria for a reviewer.
(2)To provide evidience as a leading role in a distinguished institution.
(3)To provide the importance of the award, selection criteria etc.
(4)To provide evalution from experts outside my circle or something other than
recommendation letters.

Any suggestion, particularly for (2) and (4) will be appreciated very much.
Click to expand...

1) Get letter from editor explaining why you were chosen as a referee based on your achievements.
2) Get more independent recommenadation letters from scientists all over the world (with no connection to you) explaining your leading role at the institution.
3) Get letter from the award organization explaining their criteria. Get list of former award winners and CVs of them and show their successful career with this award as an important milestone.
4) Get papers which cite your work. With cite, I mean papers which discuss your achievements in greater details, simple citation won't help you. Get any kind of media which mention your research and your name. And of course get more recommendation letters from independent top scientists (no connection to you) from industry and academia from all over the world
 
thak you hookman.

Do you think if it helps if I ask the director of my research center write
a letter to confirm my critical role?
Thanks a lot.

tim
 
yellow_tim said:
thak you hookman.

Do you think if it helps if I ask the director of my research center write
a letter to confirm my critical role?
Thanks a lot.

tim
Click to expand...


If it is in addition to letters from independent scientists: yes. If it is the only recommendation letters: Very unlikely.
 
For regular scientists like you and me, the only criteria you can target are scholarly publication, original contribution and critical role in a distinguished institution. It is very hard to satisfy any other criteria among 10 criteria outlined in the US immigration law for EB1-EA. If you have read a few AAO decisions, you will know this is true. For example, to satisfy criterion of "judging other people's work", you have to be some one who has done this kind of work in excess quantity, and who has been specifically invited by some technical conference panels to sit in as judge etc. If you have just done 7 reviews in past 5 years, you will not win on this criterion. I would suggest you to focus on the three criteria I mentioned above. You should ask your director to write a support letter specifically claim that you have played important role in your institution. Of course, you also need to supply material to demonstrate your inst is a distinguished establishment first. Don't assume CIS people know your institute. Again, you should really read a few AAO's decision on EA appeal cases. They will help you a lot to understand what EA requires for.

Good luck.
 
I have a similar situation. I was wondering if CIS accept any documentation that come after the original application date. WHat kind of documentaiton can support original contribution and critical role? Recommentation letters?
 
Alien

Thanks, Alien.

I have read many cases about the AAO decisions. By now, I have not found one case whose statement of critical role in the institution is recognized by the immigration office or AAO. It seems also very difficult for this criterion.

Regarding the reviewer, they also need the regularity and a huge amount
of requests for reviewing manuscripts. It seems also very hard for me. Anyway,
I have to try my best to see what will happen. If it is denied, I will have to apply for NIW. Last year, I did not apply for NIW because I was busy with several
scientific meetings after submitting my application of EB1A. I was so silly.
My H1b will expire at the end of next year (6th year). I have to hurry up.
 
It is true that it is difficulty to argue about "critical role". It was my weak point too when I responded my RFE. I had quite a few hard evidences for the other two criteria, but not this one. All I had were my own words. It was the best effort I could do. But it worked. I think if you organize your evidences nicely and show that you have a good understanding what EA requires for, you should be OK.

What was your RFE like? Is it like mine (see th links below)?

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=148088&highlight=alien_simba

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=144163&page=2&highlight=alien_simba
 
real said:
I have a similar situation. I was wondering if CIS accept any documentation that come after the original application date. WHat kind of documentaiton can support original contribution and critical role? Recommentation letters?
Click to expand...

No, you can not use the evidence existed before your initial submission of I-140. That is clearly stated in many AAO decisions on appeal cases.

For original contribution: publications, citations, support letters, awards, etc.

For critical role: support letters, awards, media reports...
 
Alien_Simba said:
It is true that it is difficulty to argue about "critical role". It was my weak point too when I responded my RFE. I had quite a few hard evidences for the other two criteria, but not this one. All I had were my own words. It was the best effort I could do. But it worked. I think if you organize your evidences nicely and show that you have a good understanding what EA requires for, you should be OK.

What was your RFE like? Is it like mine (see th links below)?

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=148088&highlight=alien_simba

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=144163&page=2&highlight=alien_simba
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------
Alien,

I have read the discussion about your case. It is really very helpful. Thanks.
Here I attached the orginal words from CIS. There are not any words in body,
just as plain as I typed below. I have found two professors who are are willing
to write the reference letters for me. However, some guys don't like to do so
although they are willing to write the references for their own postdoctors or
students. I think I need three letters. I agreed that the presentation of
my petition is not good. Looking back now, I think sveral parts need to be improved.

However, I don't undertsand what the following sentence means?
If possible, submit evidence other than more recommendation letters.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence you have submitted don't not estabalish eligibility for this classification. Although it appears that
you are a ver talented scientist, the evidence does not establish that you are extraordinary relative to other
scientists in your fields.

Extraordinary ability is defined as " a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the that small percentage
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." You must submit additional evidence which clearly demonstrate that
you have sustained national or international acclaim and that your achievements have been recognized as extraordinary by others in the field.

If the evidence includes awards or prizes, explain the reputation of the organization granting the award, the significance of the award, and the
criteria used to select the recipient.

You stats that, " I was offered membership in associations in the field, which require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international
experts." Please submit evidence of the requirements which must be met for membership.

It is noted that some scientists have cited work that uo co authored. If the evidence includes published material about the alien's work, it must be
clearly indicate that the work is significant. an unevaluated listing in a subject matter index or footnote, or a reference to the wotk without evaluation
is insufficient. Submit any published material that actually discusses you and your work.

Since the evidence includes participatio as juduge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewers, etc.

The evidence includes original scientific contributions. Please submit evidence of the importance of such contribution to the field. Evidence that those outside the
alien's circle of colleagues and acquaintances consider the work important is specially valuable. If possible, submit evidence other than more recommendation letters.

If the evidence includes the performance of the leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation, submit evidence of the organination's
reputation. Also submit actual evidence to establish that you had a leading or critical role.

If you are submitting other evidience to establish extrordinary ability, explain how the evidence establishes that the alien's work is extraordinary.
 
I have been looking at EB1- EA cases from last 3 years and finally made the move to apply for one after pressure from my friends to apply for one.

I certainly can say looking at the cases and AAO denial theory, I can assume all boils down to how you are represented in the paper.

Also I have seen the cases have been randomly denied only proves to me that they were not properly represented or rather no proper case of usuage of english to make the case strong.
 
yellow_tim said:
---------------------------------------------
Alien,

I have read the discussion about your case. It is really very helpful. Thanks.
Here I attached the orginal words from CIS. There are not any words in body,
just as plain as I typed below. I have found two professors who are are willing
to write the reference letters for me. However, some guys don't like to do so
although they are willing to write the references for their own postdoctors or
students. I think I need three letters. I agreed that the presentation of
my petition is not good. Looking back now, I think sveral parts need to be improved.

However, I don't undertsand what the following sentence means?
If possible, submit evidence other than more recommendation letters.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence you have submitted don't not estabalish eligibility for this classification. Although it appears that
you are a ver talented scientist, the evidence does not establish that you are extraordinary relative to other
scientists in your fields.

Extraordinary ability is defined as " a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the that small percentage
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." You must submit additional evidence which clearly demonstrate that
you have sustained national or international acclaim and that your achievements have been recognized as extraordinary by others in the field.

If the evidence includes awards or prizes, explain the reputation of the organization granting the award, the significance of the award, and the
criteria used to select the recipient.

You stats that, " I was offered membership in associations in the field, which require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international
experts." Please submit evidence of the requirements which must be met for membership.

It is noted that some scientists have cited work that uo co authored. If the evidence includes published material about the alien's work, it must be
clearly indicate that the work is significant. an unevaluated listing in a subject matter index or footnote, or a reference to the wotk without evaluation
is insufficient. Submit any published material that actually discusses you and your work.

Since the evidence includes participatio as juduge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewers, etc.

The evidence includes original scientific contributions. Please submit evidence of the importance of such contribution to the field. Evidence that those outside the
alien's circle of colleagues and acquaintances consider the work important is specially valuable. If possible, submit evidence other than more recommendation letters.

If the evidence includes the performance of the leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation, submit evidence of the organination's
reputation. Also submit actual evidence to establish that you had a leading or critical role.

If you are submitting other evidience to establish extrordinary ability, explain how the evidence establishes that the alien's work is extraordinary.
Click to expand...

It says "if possible". So more letters will still help although tangibles such as awards, funded proposals etc. can really clinch the issue. Put your best foot forward and have your lawyer (or yourself) answer each point. To stress impact of memberships, journals etc. use impact factors and also have experts attest to quality.

Although newer evidence is supposed to be discounted many RFE's are requesting evidence that the current job (even for employment waiver categories) is in the intrinsic national interest of the US.
 
yellow_tim said:
---------------------------------------------
Alien,

Your RFE looks same as mine. Although mines were harsher than yours. In my RFE, my initial submission was declared deficient in the first sentence. Basically your RFE requires you to reorganize your material and add more evidence to resubmitt a whole new petition, mainly because you did not do a good job in your initial submission. This RFE is your chance to turn this case around. You have to address all the points mentioned in the RFE letter in your RFE cover letter. I suppose you are going to target criteria (v), (vi) and (viii) in your RFE reponse. Please see my comments below. Also see my PM to you in your in box.


I have read the discussion about your case. It is really very helpful. Thanks.
Here I attached the orginal words from CIS. There are not any words in body,
just as plain as I typed below. I have found two professors who are are willing
to write the reference letters for me. However, some guys don't like to do so
although they are willing to write the references for their own postdoctors or
students. I think I need three letters. I agreed that the presentation of
my petition is not good. Looking back now, I think sveral parts need to be improved.

Are these two letters additional to your other support letters in your initial submission? You should draft two letters in 3 clearly defined sections accroding to the 3 criteria to address your good points.


However, I don't undertsand what the following sentence means?
If possible, submit evidence other than more recommendation letters.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence you have submitted don't not estabalish eligibility for this classification. Although it appears that
you are a ver talented scientist, the evidence does not establish that you are extraordinary relative to other
scientists in your fields.

Extraordinary ability is defined as " a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of the that small percentage
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." You must submit additional evidence which clearly demonstrate that
you have sustained national or international acclaim and that your achievements have been recognized as extraordinary by others in the field.

If the evidence includes awards or prizes, explain the reputation of the organization granting the award, the significance of the award, and the
criteria used to select the recipient.

You can use your awards in section (v), because your contributions were original, you were awarded..., and section (viii) because you have played important role in your inst, you were awarded...

You stats that, " I was offered membership in associations in the field, which require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international
experts." Please submit evidence of the requirements which must be met for membership.

You can also use this one in section (v) and (viii) for the same reason mentioned above.

It is noted that some scientists have cited work that uo co authored. If the evidence includes published material about the alien's work, it must be
clearly indicate that the work is significant. an unevaluated listing in a subject matter index or footnote, or a reference to the wotk without evaluation
is insufficient. Submit any published material that actually discusses you and your work.

You should do a citation search again on your publications. You should also present more materials about the journals you have your papers published. If indeed there are some media report about your work, and they are not significant enough for you to claim crirerion (iii), you can use them in section (v) and (viii).

Since the evidence includes participatio as juduge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewers, etc.

As you said they are not good enough for section (iv), but you can use them in section (viii).

The evidence includes original scientific contributions. Please submit evidence of the importance of such contribution to the field. Evidence that those outside the
alien's circle of colleagues and acquaintances consider the work important is specially valuable. If possible, submit evidence other than more recommendation letters.

Such as other people's published work, which used your idea to continue your work, your awards, the invitation for membership etc.


If the evidence includes the performance of the leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation, submit evidence of the organination's
reputation. Also submit actual evidence to establish that you had a leading or critical role.

If you are submitting other evidience to establish extrordinary ability, explain how the evidence establishes that the alien's work is extraordinary.
Click to expand...
 
Allen,

Thanks a lot.
The two letters are new letters from people with whom I am not familiar.
I think I need them to address all the three ponits strongly (iV, v, and viii).
 
Alien
I received similar RFE like yours. I am worried and I think my case will not stand. I am giving the hope. Here is my background
15 years of software experience
1) Senior Director Software Development
2) Senior IEEE membership
3) Computer Society Chapter Chairman in one of the five chapter in California
4) Evaulating and judging the Senior membership for IEEE
5) Developed product which made the company one of the top company
6)Crtical Role in company
7) High Salary as compared to other Senior Director ( Above 90 %)
8) Recived National award for my project.
9) Writing lots internal white paper but not bulished due to comany policy
10) Review the architecture /design document for almost 60 technicle engineers within orginsation


The petition has been reviewed and has been found to be deficient. Submit evidence that addresses the deficiencies below, or submit additional evidence relating to at least three of the categories shown in bold.
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
Local awards: The award included in the record appears to be local in nature, having been awarded by a local chamber of commerce.. Provide evidence of (national) (international) scope of this award, as well as the criteria used to nominate and judge the participants and award winners. Also, include evidence that identifies previous winners of the award for the past three to five years.


(ii) Documentation of the' aliens membership in association* in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;
Associations: Provide the minimum requirements and criteria used to apply for membership in the association in which the alien claims membership. Also, include evidence that lists the number of current members, the beneficiary's rank compared to other members in the association, the status held by the association in the international community in the field of endeavor; and any other conditions or requirements of membership.

(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material and any necessary translation;
Published material: Provide evidence to establish the significance of any 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.

(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;
Judge of the work ..pfLothers: Provide evidence to establish the significance of the work judged by the alien and the criteria used to choose the alien as a judge.


(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business~related contributions of major significance in the field;
Original contri buti on s: Submit evidence to establish how and why the alien's work is considered original and how and why jt constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field of business compared to all others in the field

(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publication!! OF other major media;

Provide evidence to establish the significance and importance of the alien's scholarly articles in the field. Additionally, provide evidence to establish the significance and importance of the professional or major trade publications or other major media that have published the alien's scholarly articles. Indicate if the publication has local, national, or international circulation, how often it is printed and the number of copies printed.

(viii) Evidence (hat the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
Criticaj_role: The evidence submitted does not clearly establish that the alien has played a leading or critical role. Submit evidence to establish that the alien has played a leading or critical role in aji organization or establishment wftrfa distinguished reputation in tilepast rather just an important supporting role. The evidence should clearly demonstrate how the field of business management has been impacted, and/or how it has changed as a result of the petitioner's work.

(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefleld; or
Remuneration: The evidence submitted does not clearly establish that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services compared to others in the field for a sustained period. Submit evidence, such as a statistical comparison of the salaries in the field of business management from the Economic Research Institute, or like organization, to establish that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services compared to other senior directors in the field of software engineering.


I have given hopes that CSC will review my case after I reply my RFE.
 
Chipman said:
Alien
I received similar RFE like yours. I am worried and I think my case will not stand. I am giving the hope. Here is my background
15 years of software experience
1) Senior Director Software Development
2) Senior IEEE membership
3) Computer Society Chapter Chairman in one of the five chapter in California
4) Evaulating and judging the Senior membership for IEEE
5) Developed product which made the company one of the top company
6)Crtical Role in company
7) High Salary as compared to other Senior Director ( Above 90 %)
8) Recived National award for my project.
9) Writing lots internal white paper but not bulished due to comany policy
10) Review the architecture /design document for almost 60 technicle engineers within orginsation


The petition has been reviewed and has been found to be deficient. Submit evidence that addresses the deficiencies below, or submit additional evidence relating to at least three of the categories shown in bold.
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
Local awards: The award included in the record appears to be local in nature, having been awarded by a local chamber of commerce.. Provide evidence of (national) (international) scope of this award, as well as the criteria used to nominate and judge the participants and award winners. Also, include evidence that identifies previous winners of the award for the past three to five years.


(ii) Documentation of the' aliens membership in association* in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;
Associations: Provide the minimum requirements and criteria used to apply for membership in the association in which the alien claims membership. Also, include evidence that lists the number of current members, the beneficiary's rank compared to other members in the association, the status held by the association in the international community in the field of endeavor; and any other conditions or requirements of membership.

(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material and any necessary translation;
Published material: Provide evidence to establish the significance of any 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.

(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;
Judge of the work ..pfLothers: Provide evidence to establish the significance of the work judged by the alien and the criteria used to choose the alien as a judge.


(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business~related contributions of major significance in the field;
Original contri buti on s: Submit evidence to establish how and why the alien's work is considered original and how and why jt constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field of business compared to all others in the field

(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publication!! OF other major media;

Provide evidence to establish the significance and importance of the alien's scholarly articles in the field. Additionally, provide evidence to establish the significance and importance of the professional or major trade publications or other major media that have published the alien's scholarly articles. Indicate if the publication has local, national, or international circulation, how often it is printed and the number of copies printed.

(viii) Evidence (hat the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
Criticaj_role: The evidence submitted does not clearly establish that the alien has played a leading or critical role. Submit evidence to establish that the alien has played a leading or critical role in aji organization or establishment wftrfa distinguished reputation in tilepast rather just an important supporting role. The evidence should clearly demonstrate how the field of business management has been impacted, and/or how it has changed as a result of the petitioner's work.

(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefleld; or
Remuneration: The evidence submitted does not clearly establish that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services compared to others in the field for a sustained period. Submit evidence, such as a statistical comparison of the salaries in the field of business management from the Economic Research Institute, or like organization, to establish that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services compared to other senior directors in the field of software engineering.


I have given hopes that CSC will review my case after I reply my RFE.
Click to expand...

1) Get letters from the organization who gave you the award with the criteria for the award selection and that it is an national/international award. Get lists of former award winners and show with their CV that this award was a major milestone for them.

2) I am not familiar with Senior IEEE membership but get letters from IEEE that they choose you because of your outstanding accomplishments. Get the criteria for the selection. Show that you don;t have to pay any fees for the membership.

3) Collect all your papers. Get excellent reference letters from high profile scientists in academia and industry around the world who are not in anyway associated with you describing in excellent words that you are on top of your field in the world. Get list of citations, get copies of papers who discuss your work in detail. Show that their research was influenced by your own research results.

4) Evaulating and judging the Senior membership for IEEE: Get letters from the IEEE that you were choosen for that job because of your outstanding accomplishments in your career. Review papers within your organization doesn't help you much since no outside person can evaluate your impact.

5) Get excellent reference letters from high profile scientists in academia and industry around the world who are not in anyway associated with you describing in excellent words that you are on top of your field in the world. Get list of citations, get copies of papers who discuss your work in detail.

6) Get list of your papers. Get all informations about the journals you published (impact factor, advisory board, number of copies etc.) and show that they are the best journals in your field.

8) You have to get excellent recommendation letters from people outside your organization (which you don;t have any connection with) that you paly a majot role within your comapny and that you developed a product which made the company one of the top company. Such letters from direct competitiors would be very helpful.

9) Get salary data from organizations like Economic Research Institute who compare salaries nationwide and show that you have a significant higher salary then the rest in your field. Don't compare anything just within your company that is worthless. And a significant higher salary means significant higher. If the avaerage is for example $150000 you should at least earn $220000.

BTW, since you have a permanent job why did you apply for EA instead of OR ? EA might be pretty tough for you but OR would be much easier.
 
Honkman
thanks for your valuable input. I applied for EB2 in Sept 2002 with labor certification. The labor certification is still pening for last 3 years because of mess up by DOL. My company do not want to sponsor any other application. There is only option is to apply on EA or NIW.
I think your suggestion is good and I will definitely try my best with all the information, I will try to apply on NIW also and see if that works.



honkman said:
1) Get letters from the organization who gave you the award with the criteria for the award selection and that it is an national/international award. Get lists of former award winners and show with their CV that this award was a major milestone for them.

2) I am not familiar with Senior IEEE membership but get letters from IEEE that they choose you because of your outstanding accomplishments. Get the criteria for the selection. Show that you don;t have to pay any fees for the membership.

3) Collect all your papers. Get excellent reference letters from high profile scientists in academia and industry around the world who are not in anyway associated with you describing in excellent words that you are on top of your field in the world. Get list of citations, get copies of papers who discuss your work in detail. Show that their research was influenced by your own research results.

4) Evaulating and judging the Senior membership for IEEE: Get letters from the IEEE that you were choosen for that job because of your outstanding accomplishments in your career. Review papers within your organization doesn't help you much since no outside person can evaluate your impact.

5) Get excellent reference letters from high profile scientists in academia and industry around the world who are not in anyway associated with you describing in excellent words that you are on top of your field in the world. Get list of citations, get copies of papers who discuss your work in detail.

6) Get list of your papers. Get all informations about the journals you published (impact factor, advisory board, number of copies etc.) and show that they are the best journals in your field.

8) You have to get excellent recommendation letters from people outside your organization (which you don;t have any connection with) that you paly a majot role within your comapny and that you developed a product which made the company one of the top company. Such letters from direct competitiors would be very helpful.

9) Get salary data from organizations like Economic Research Institute who compare salaries nationwide and show that you have a significant higher salary then the rest in your field. Don't compare anything just within your company that is worthless. And a significant higher salary means significant higher. If the avaerage is for example $150000 you should at least earn $220000.

BTW, since you have a permanent job why did you apply for EA instead of OR ? EA might be pretty tough for you but OR would be much easier.
Click to expand...
 
Chipman,

Given your credentials outlined in your postings, I think you have a good chance to win this case. I happen to find an AAO decision, in which the CIS director's decision was over turned. In that caes, the beneficiary has very similar background like yours. Please have a look. It should help you to prepare your response.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/admindec3/b2/2004/apr1304_02b2203.pdf

Honkman's advice is very good. I just want to add a few points. I think you should focus on only three criteria in your RFE response. In some sections, you may seem to be OK, but your evidence is not strong enough to win the claim. In this case you should use that evidence in your other section as a help. A lot of us stumble at first step of green card application. It usaully because we are too over confident about ourself and at same time understand too little about the EA process. You should really review all your evidence carefully and make decision on which three criteria you want to target. Do not make any unreasonable claim, which will reflect negatively on you and will show that you do not understand the EA process. Therefore, organization of your RFE cover letter is very important. In my RFE letter (posted in this forum), CIS director did instruct me to organize my evidence according to the criterion I sought after. From credentials outlined in your posting, I think you should focus on criteria (ii), (v) and (viii).

I think IEEE senior membership is significant enough for you to claim this section. You should present a lot of material about IEEE, about selection criteria of senior membership and why you are qualified. You can also show some statistics of other IEEE senior member's achievements to elevate its significance.

In section (viii), you should first show good reputation of your company. But if your company is not an important big company in your industry, you should show that you made critical contribution to the software industry, like how they argued their case in the AAO decision I mentioned above. In this case, you should also have some reference letters to support you on this.

Regarding high salary, I think you should be careful about this point. The criterion (ix) in the immigration law is designed for people in the fields of art and professional athletes. It is not meant for people like us in science and engineering. I remember I read an AAO decision once, that someone claimed criteria (ix) because he was paid exceptionally high salary in a company, and the claim became a base for AAO adjudicator to deny his appeal. The adjudicator wrote that apparently he was not working as a researcher in the company because his salary was too high for a researcher. He must be doing some management job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank You Alien for the reference case. This will definitely help me to build my case stronger. I will take your advice to stress on three points you mentioned. I will forward you the rough draft in few days.


Alien_Simba said:
Chipman,

Given your credentials outlined in your postings, I think you have a good chance to win this case. I happen to find an AAO decision, in which the CIS director's decision was over turned. In that caes, the beneficiary has very similar background like yours. Please have a look. It should help you to prepare your response.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/admindec3/b2/2004/apr1304_02b2203.pdf

Honkman's advice is very good. I just want to add a few points. I think you should focus on only three criteria in your RFE response. In some sections, you may seem to be OK, but your evidence is not strong enough to win the claim. In this case you should use that evidence in your other section as a help. A lot of us stumble at first step of green card application. It usaully because we are too over confident about ourself and at same time understand too little about the EA process. You should really review all your evidence carefully and make decision on which three criteria you want to target. Do not make any unreasonable claim, which will reflect negatively on you and will show that you do not understand the EA process. Therefore, organization of your RFE cover letter is very important. In my RFE letter (posted in this forum), CIS director did instruct me to organize my evidence according to the criterion I sought after. From credentials outlined in your posting, I think you should focus on criteria (ii), (v) and (viii).

I think IEEE senior membership is significant enough for you to claim this section. You should present a lot of material about IEEE, about selection criteria of senior membership and why you are qualified. You can also show some statistics of other IEEE senior member's achievements to elevate its significance.

In section (viii), you should first show good reputation of your company. But if your company is not an important big company in your industry, you should show that you made critical contribution to the software industry, like how they argued their case in the AAO decision I mentioned above. In this case, you should also have some reference letters to support you on this.

Regarding high salary, I think you should be careful about this point. The criterion (ix) in the immigration law is designed for people in the fields of art and professional athletes. It is not meant for people like us in science and engineering. I remember I read an AAO decision once, that someone claimed criteria (ix) because he was paid exceptionally high salary in a company, and the claim became a base for AAO adjudicator to deny his appeal. The adjudicator wrote that apparently he was not working as a researcher in the company because his salary was too high for a researcher. He must be doing some management job.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top