EB1A RFE, help

llp1

Registered Users (C)
Dear friends,
This morning I received an email from CRIS saying ' We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence. ' Not a very good news, so I am waiting for the paper notice, thinking of how I can reply the RFE appropriately. I thought I provided all the evidences that I could think of.
Following the discussion on this forum, I did the petition by myself. In that 29 pages petition letter, I stated my credentials: 1. two national awards from Canada (post doc fellowships); 2. couple of society memberships including Sigma Xi (I know this is not strong); 3. original contribution (9 recom letters, near 30 citations); 4. authorship (16 journal papers, 10 first author); 5. judge of others work (review for several journals, conference proceedings, organizing/coorganizing conferences/symposiums); 6. exhibit of work (conference presentations, invited talks to conferences/universities). I put lot of effort for criteria 3, 4 and 5, hoping to get approved.
Each criterion may be RFEed. I tried to document the evidences carefully, and I didn't PP to rush the case, but still I got RFE.
Now, the new term starts, as an assistant professor of mathematics, I really don't have much time for this. Well, not a complaint, but I am really nervous. If this didn't get through, I have to apply through other channels and start the whole preparation again.
Thanks for your time.
Suggestions and comments are very welcome!
I will post the RFE letter here once I receive it. Stay tuned.
 
Sorry to hear that.

I agree with your points 3, 4 and 5 being your "best" bets.

Forget about exhibits of your work (which does not apply to talks/posters...) and the society memberships you mention (they are not selective enough). Your awards are not likely to be sufficient if they are just post doc fellowships.

Waiting for your RFE, and in order to help you in the most efficient way, could you post more details on your publications (number of citations for the three most cited where you are first author,...). "Near 30 citations" for 16 papers is not too much: it will be difficult to evidence the importance of your role in your field and it is where you will have to work hard.

As for the reviews, how many articles did you refer?

Chris
 
Hi ll1,
Sorry to hear. I think tyou did not present well. Without claming awrds and memberships, you wud have claimed other 3 criterias.
BTW, what are the average number of publications in mathematics at asst prof level? Do you have any publications in top journals in your field? what are the impact factor of these journals? Citations are not sufficient to claim original contributions unless they are published recently.
As Chris suggested, please post your comments for better advices. Chris has long experience in EB1A, cath hold of him to answer RFE.
Good luck
 
Thanks, ChrisV and goviks. Without you guys help, I don't even have the courage to answer the RFE. In fact, without this forum, I wouldn't have the gut to DIY EB1A.
I did work hard on the petition letter. But I admit that there must be some points that I overlooked. I really didn't think of the average number of publications in mathematics at asst. prof level? For the top journals in my field, how could I claim, by my references letters?

Anyways, here are the evidences I provided for my best 3 bets.

3. judge of work of others

3.1 I detailed my significant role in an international conference: sitting in the organizing committee, inviting panel speakers, reviewing submitted abstracts and conference proceeding papers, co-chairing a special session. I provided certificate letters from the chair of the organizing committee to confirm my role in the committee and co-chairing a session, also provided the invitation for the proceeding review, as well as the importance of the proceeding journal and positive feedback from attendees.

3.2 The review for five journals with six papers, three international conferences with four proceeding papers. I provided the journals and conferences description, the impact factors of the journals, as well as the invitation letters from the (chief editors).

3.3 A member on the editor board of a new journal. I provided the invitation letter from the chief editor. Because it is a new journal, the first issue hasn't been out yet. I couldn't provide further materials.

3.4 Co-chaired a special session, provided the letter from the organizer.

3.5 Co-organized three international conferences, provided the certificates from the chair of the organizing committee, as well as the description of the conferences.

4. Original contribution

4.1 Thirty-nine citations. I provided the print out from ISI Web of Knowledge, in the letter I highlighted the major three papers work and the number of citations. The top one is with 12 citations. I also carefully explained the long citation span in mathematical contributions, which is why my recently published contributions don't have many citations. However, I did provide email requests for those papers.

4.2 Nine senior researchers confirm the significance of my contribution. They are from USA (Duke U, UTPA), Canada (NRC, U of Alberta), Hong Kong (City U), Germany and UK; two are post doc supervisors, one PhD supervisor, one journal editor, one is my current chair in the department, others are independent (they heard my presentations in the conferences, or cited my work). In their letters, they specifically mentioned my contribution in the papers, and that my work helped their research etc. The journal editor (German) confirmed that I am one of the regular reviewers.

5. Authorship: 16 peer-reviewed papers in 8 journals, 12 conference proceedings and one book chapter.

For each journal I described the importance and the impact factor. I also provided a media paper explaining the low impact factor in mathematics journals. Provided the front page (at least) for each of my papers. For the conference proceedings, I highlighted the importance of some conferences, and provided couple of sample proceeding papers.

Lastly, I didn't claim the following as Exhibits of Art.
6. Presentations: 15 or so conference presentations (some are invited), 5 invited talks at three different universities.
I chose couple of conferences to report. For the invited talks/presentations, I provided the letters or emails.
 
Hi IIP1,
You have excellent credentials. However, they may consider the field too, I guess. Looks like your presentation is good with adequate documentation. I feel you may not get major comments. Wait and see.
Please post you comments and we can get an idea how to answer them.
Thanks
 
Thanks for your nice comments, goviks.
I will post the USCIS notice when I get it. Most likely it will this Friday or next week.
Meanwhile, if anyone spot out anything missing, please kindly advice me.
Usually what can I do for the RFE? Getting more letters from new references? I am running out of resources.
 
Just curious, they did not fax you/your lawyer a copy of the RFE? Of course if you had provided a number.
But don't worry, just wait for the RFE. You will probably need more letters. But get the RFE first then you can answer lot of points through those new letters.
 
Additional Info

I received my EB-1(a) status in Sept. 2005. The process went VERY fast. (6 weeks from start to finish). However I did receive one letter asking for additional info. I did not have any additional info., if I did have it, I would have sent it in with the first batch. My lawyer sent back a letter bascially saying, that's all there is (and it was alot). I got my next (approval) letter from USCIS a couple weeks later. If you do not have any addtional info., don't sweat it too much.
Jeff
 
Well, here is the RFE: (it is a long and detailed one, three pages, sorry guys)

It specifically said "... do not qualify in this category" for the awards, and "...Sigma Xi not qualify in this criterion" for the memberships.
It seems it is very difficulty to argue and claim those criteria.

3. judge of work of others
The response sounds positive, yet it says:
"You may submit evidence that sets the petitioner apart from otheres in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for distinguished journals."
This is the only item that he didn't request "submit further evidence that ..." while the next two other items are all with this in bold face.

4. Original contribution:
He only accepted two as independent references and clearly it indicated that I need more out of loop references.
One thing I didn't do well on my file: in the letters there are words like "...she has the potential to become..." "holds great promise to become.." and "is talented and promising young mathematician" So I need stronger letters.
He emphasized that "material submitted must discuss the significant impact that petitioner's work has had on the field. ... How does the evidence define petitioner as one who 'is on of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field..'"
At the end in bold face "submit further evidence that petitioner's original scientific or scholarly contributions have garnered national or international attention."

5. Authorship:
It says "publications of scholarly articles or citations, which simply reference an individual's work, is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community's reaction to those articles or the petitioner's work." "How do these research articles constitute evidence of a major contribution to her field? It is not clear that the petitioner's work has made a significant contribution to the world of scientific research outside her immediate circle of professors, collaborators, and colleagues. ..."
At the end in bold face "submit evidence that petitioner's work has had a significant impact on the profession as a whole. How has petitioner's work set her apart from other researchers in her field with her training and background who have published their research?"

Looks to me, items 4 and 5 are together: I need to gather independent references with higher evaluation and more detailed explanation about my contribution. It is really not easy. But I have to try.

Comments and suggestions are great appreciated
Thanks
 
Thanks, JeffTexas. You sound nice, I work in a state university in Texas.
You are brave and very confident. I dare not to do that.
At the end of the letter, it says:
The requested information must be received within sixty days form the date of this letter. Failure to do so may result in the denial of your petition.

When I got the notice yesterday, it was already five days after the date on the letter. Now, I have to ask for more references, and I have to rush them to write letters for me while everyone is busy at getting classes started. Sigh...
 
I think more strong independent reference letters and good, independent comments or praises on your papers are crucial, which can prove you have made significantly larger impact than your peers. It will be better if you could find some media reports on your work.
 
IIp1 - No problem. Also, my letter said the exact same thing. If you have more info. send it, but if you don't have any more (i didn't), it can still be approved. Also, after I received the approval letter for my EB-1(a), I received my green card in the mail the very next day...and I'm not joking. It went extremely smoothly for me, except for that one letter asking for more info.
 
Well, here is the RFE: (it is a long and detailed one, three pages, sorry guys)

It specifically said "... do not qualify in this category" for the awards, and "...Sigma Xi not qualify in this criterion" for the memberships.
It seems it is very difficulty to argue and claim those criteria.

Just curious, were you elected as a full member?

3. judge of work of others
The response sounds positive, yet it says:
"You may submit evidence that sets the petitioner apart from otheres in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for distinguished journals."
This is the only item that he didn't request "submit further evidence that ..." while the next two other items are all with this in bold face.

I think, you should still send some additional evidence, such as a letter from the editorial office. You can request the secretary of the editor to write that. S/he probably will ask you to draft one, actually it is always better that you offer to draft and can put necessary info (such as because of your strong experties and publication in the field you have been invited to be a reviewer for this prestigious journal...etc etc. This is an honor for a scientist at this level...etc etc)

This criteria is really strong for you. Get recommendation letter(s) where it is stated that because of your extraordinary achievements in the field you have been selected to judge of such and such journal/conference papers etc and this is truly rare for a person at this level of his/her career. Also that you were chosen to chair international conference sessions, that says clearly that you are recognized internationally.

4. Original contribution:
He only accepted two as independent references and clearly it indicated that I need more out of loop references.
One thing I didn't do well on my file: in the letters there are words like "...she has the potential to become..." "holds great promise to become.." and "is talented and promising young mathematician" So I need stronger letters.
He emphasized that "material submitted must discuss the significant impact that petitioner's work has had on the field. ... How does the evidence define petitioner as one who 'is on of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field..'"
At the end in bold face "submit further evidence that petitioner's original scientific or scholarly contributions have garnered national or international attention."

Those phrases that you mentioned are basically 'no no' for EB1a. The letters should clearly state that you have already proven yourself to be with 1-3% of the people in this field. Try to get letters from people who do not know you absolutely or never met you. They should mention that in the letter. Again offer to draft the letters yourself. mention that the recommenders know you through your work, publications or outstanding presentations at conferences etc. Try to get letters from different countries. That gives you international recognition.

5. Authorship:
It says "publications of scholarly articles or citations, which simply reference an individual's work, is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community's reaction to those articles or the petitioner's work." "How do these research articles constitute evidence of a major contribution to her field? It is not clear that the petitioner's work has made a significant contribution to the world of scientific research outside her immediate circle of professors, collaborators, and colleagues. ..."
At the end in bold face "submit evidence that petitioner's work has had a significant impact on the profession as a whole. How has petitioner's work set her apart from other researchers in her field with her training and background who have published their research?"

Talk about the citations of your work or if any paper highlights your work in particular. Also letters from independent people will help here if they say that in the letter.

Looks to me, items 4 and 5 are together: I need to gather independent references with higher evaluation and more detailed explanation about my contribution. It is really not easy. But I have to try.

Comments and suggestions are great appreciated
Thanks


After you gather all your evidence, write a strong but simple to read (not very technical) cover letter. Quote comments from recommendations letters to support the criteria.

All the best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you very much, eb1a-query.

Yes, I am a full member. (got approved early this year)

I can get one strong letter from a journal. He really knows me because of my contribution in the field. I will draft the letter very carefully. Hope I could catch him these days though.

For the original contribution, I definitely need to get more and stronger letters. I have hard time at drafting the letters. Many of those letters are modification of the letters for my job application as they are also my references for my job, and my references requested so (they didn't pay much attention to this).

For the authorship, I will definitely try to find if any paper highlighted my work. And get the comments for my work in the letters.

It's a short time, do you think two or three letters are enough? Or I need at least five?
Is it OK that I PM you for the help with the "appropriate wording" to prove that I am one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field... I am scratching my head: I was trained to be moderate, even the top one mathematician wouldn't say he is the best while say there is still much he doesn't know.

Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Other similar applicants sure will benefit much from this discussion.
 
Sure, you can send me a PM.

Do not worry, you case is pretty strong I think. You will get it approved if you present it properly.
 
Hi IIp1,
Don`t worry, u will get through. I feel your letters are not strong enough as they play critical role for EB1A.
1. Forget about awards and memberships
3. get some strong letters from editors and faculty saying that only few expert peers at your levels get oppurtunity to review papers etc.
4. your letters shud have words such as your work has led breaktrhough with pointing some of your publications. You have reached top in the field by major contribution and belongs to small group of people in the field ...
5. Your reco letters must clearly mention the significance of your published papers and the profile of the journal .....

How come only 6 days. we have 60 days to answer RFE.
Any way, Hurry up and Good luck.
 
Thanks, goviks, eb1a-query, JeffTexas, and arthurking75.
I can only gather more independent letters from editors and researchers in the fields (or close). Then I will explain more in my cover letter for the response to RFE.
I have the feeling that they are getting more and more strict on EB1A.
Yes, I also have 60 days to answer RFE.
 
llp1,

I agree with you that they tend to be relative strict on the criteria these days, looking at denials or RFEs.

On "judge of the work of others", they ask for evidence forlarge number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for distinguished journals.

I think that you really have to answer directly by evidencing explicity one or more of those three points. You have reviewed 6 papers, so don't try to justify the large number of articles. If you are not an editor for distinguished journals, you are left with received independent requests from a substantial number of journals. With 5 journals, it could work, though 4 of them will have asked you only once, with a total of 6 papers reviewed (if I do the math right).

This is really the criterion you have to be the most convincing with, as it is seems to be the weakest one, at least judging from the information you gave. Adding the conference papers you mention is OK, but we all know that there is a difference (sometimes big) between a refereed paper in a good journal and conference proceedings. An exceptional presentation at a conference will nearly always give a very good paper in a journal anyway.

Chris
 
Chris,
I do not agree with your arguement regarding review of papers for journals to claim criteria. However, I agree that reviewing 6 papers as a faculty is not a great thing. I think we can claim that by providing strong letters from the editors, although it is not large volume for faculties. I do not know about mathematics but very few peers (<5%) in lifesciences get oppurtunity to review papers for international journals before they become faculty.
 
I am in a very similar situation, GOT A RFE(s) for National and international awards and judge of the work of other; I am one of the reviewers of only one journal. I have been asked submit evidence to show that I actually reviewed it. It is difficult to predict what the every examiner really thinks.
 
Top