Eb1b Rfe Help

N

nerf

Registered Users (C)
Just got a RFE for my EB1B-OR. My basic background is: PHD in tier-2 US university; 4 journal pubs and 5 conferences with a few citations; now working in a software company

The RFE is as follows:

Criteria (A) to (C) for outstanding researcher: nonrelevant so neglected

(D) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as the judge of the work of others in the same, or an allied, academic field. If the evidence includes participation as a judge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewer, etc.

1. Provide evidence how the beneficiary was selected to review for the journals in which he reviewed.
2. Also provide evidence about the significance of the journals he was asked to review submissions for.
3. Such evidence may include the relative impact factor of the journal or the circulation rank.


(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. If the evidence includes original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions, submit evidence of the importance of such contributions to the field. Evidence that those outside the alien's circle of colleagues and acquaintances conside rthe work important is especially valuable.

4. Provide additional evidence from third-parties for whom the beneficiary has not had a working
relationship with.
5. Evidence could include a letter from such an individual that has used the beneficiary's research to
further their own work.
6. Evidence could also be from companies or other organizations that have used the beneficiary's work
to produce a new product or improve a process they use.
7. You may also submit evidence that the beneficiary's work has received a patent.


(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field. If the evidence includes authorship of scholarly articles, explain teh significance of the publications in which they appeared.

8. Provide additional evidence about the publications in which the beneficiary's articles have been
published.
9. Such evidence may include the relative impact of each journal or the ranking of the journal in terms
of circulation.

Finally the RFE ends with: "The mere submission of two or more of the above items may not establish eligibility for this classification. The evidence must clearly demonstrate that the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding."


Do you think this RFE difficult? What is exactly the USCIS person looking for, by listing the evidences that he/she wants from me? I kind of know that the "international recognization" is the emphasis here, but can anyone give me some hint on how it can be shown? I think I will be able to get more letters from the persons getting involved, but getting a letter without the eyeball-catching effect is certainly undesirable.

Is this a "general" RFE, as I have seen many people recently got? I do not think the officer really spent much time on my material since he/she missed some of the points that I have already made in initial petition. But he/she does point out about 9 different kinds of evidences that I may improve. What do you guys think?

I have been watching the threads in this forum for a long time. But this is the first time I post. Thank you very much!
 
I don't think it's a general RFE, but I may be totally wrong. Can you please post what exact evidences you had submitted with your petition and which criteria you claimed you fulfilled? Looks like you didn't present your case properly.
 
eb1a-query said:
I don't think it's a general RFE, but I may be totally wrong. Can you please post what exact evidences you had submitted with your petition and which criteria you claimed you fulfilled? Looks like you didn't present your case properly.
Click to expand...

eb1a-query, thank you for your reply. I do not think that my attorney organized my case very well, as much of the material is left in the huge pile of paper without proper indexing.

In retrospect, I guess I should probably organize all the materials in a easily accessible way. Also I should emphasize on the criterion that each evidence is focused on.

My relevant material includes:
Exhibit D: Scholarly publications and conference presentations
1. Journal and conference publications (4 and 5 each)
2. Proof of international circulation of journals
3. Conference presentations

Exhibit E through M: testimony letter from distinguish experts 1. letters from nine references, including five independent experts
2. Web page of of a software product that uses an algorithm that I develoed

Exhibit N: Participation as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field
1. Review records for certain conferences

Any suggestions? Thanks
 
kumarbr2000 said:
Your post mentions about criteria A to C being not relevant, so negelected. What are these criteria?
Click to expand...

My bad. I was talking about the six criteria that USCIS asks for EB1B, i.e,
(A) Documentation of the individual’s receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field;
(B) Documentation of the person’s membership in associations in the academic field that require outstanding achievements of their members;
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;
(D) Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field;
(E) Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field; or
(F) Evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field;

In my case, I did not prove (A)~(C) so they are irrelevant.
 
nerf said:
Just got a RFE for my EB1B-OR. My basic background is: PHD in tier-2 US university; 4 journal pubs and 5 conferences with a few citations; now working in a software company

The RFE is as follows:

Criteria (A) to (C) for outstanding researcher: nonrelevant so neglected

(D) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as the judge of the work of others in the same, or an allied, academic field. If the evidence includes participation as a judge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewer, etc.

1. Provide evidence how the beneficiary was selected to review for the journals in which he reviewed.
2. Also provide evidence about the significance of the journals he was asked to review submissions for.
3. Such evidence may include the relative impact factor of the journal or the circulation rank.


(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. If the evidence includes original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions, submit evidence of the importance of such contributions to the field. Evidence that those outside the alien's circle of colleagues and acquaintances conside rthe work important is especially valuable.

4. Provide additional evidence from third-parties for whom the beneficiary has not had a working
relationship with.
5. Evidence could include a letter from such an individual that has used the beneficiary's research to
further their own work.
6. Evidence could also be from companies or other organizations that have used the beneficiary's work
to produce a new product or improve a process they use.
7. You may also submit evidence that the beneficiary's work has received a patent.


(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field. If the evidence includes authorship of scholarly articles, explain teh significance of the publications in which they appeared.

8. Provide additional evidence about the publications in which the beneficiary's articles have been
published.
9. Such evidence may include the relative impact of each journal or the ranking of the journal in terms
of circulation.

Finally the RFE ends with: "The mere submission of two or more of the above items may not establish eligibility for this classification. The evidence must clearly demonstrate that the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding."


Do you think this RFE difficult? What is exactly the USCIS person looking for, by listing the evidences that he/she wants from me? I kind of know that the "international recognization" is the emphasis here, but can anyone give me some hint on how it can be shown? I think I will be able to get more letters from the persons getting involved, but getting a letter without the eyeball-catching effect is certainly undesirable.

Is this a "general" RFE, as I have seen many people recently got? I do not think the officer really spent much time on my material since he/she missed some of the points that I have already made in initial petition. But he/she does point out about 9 different kinds of evidences that I may improve. What do you guys think?

I have been watching the threads in this forum for a long time. But this is the first time I post. Thank you very much!
Click to expand...

HI, When did you file your petition at NSC?
 
nerf said:
RD 05/17/2006
upgraded to premium processing 10/12/2006
request for evidence 10/17/2006
Click to expand...

Thanks. So you waited for 5 months then you went for PP. will it going to be beneficial to you?

Good luck
 
nerf,

(A) and (B) may be difficult, but for part (C), can you find papers which have referred to your work and specifically stated so (not mere citation of your work, but actually discussing your work in the text) ? Can you get letter(s) from these author(s) ?

You may want to speak to an experienced attorney who can organize the facts in a much better way.


nerf said:
My bad. I was talking about the six criteria that USCIS asks for EB1B, i.e,
(A) Documentation of the individual’s receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in the academic field;
(B) Documentation of the person’s membership in associations in the academic field that require outstanding achievements of their members;
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;
(D) Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field;
(E) Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field; or
(F) Evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field;

In my case, I did not prove (A)~(C) so they are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
 
Try to submit more letters

You may submit the journal web site and the membership criteria quoted from the web site, so that the lay man (adjudicating officer) can understand. Never use too complicating words that is difficult to understand.

Outstanding or internationally recognized:
you may high light if some one has used your software or has referred anywhere in the publications. Try to get some more reference letters from people around the world, who are independent, that is what exactly they want.

review records:
If you know the conference chair, try to get a letter from him stating that you were a panel member and has reviewed abstracts or papers, and should high light that the selction was based on your outstanding contributions in this field. There are lot of terminologies the attorneys suggest to use and not to use. Use of - you are a very hard working, good person---etc is not good in a reference letter. Try to emphasize only on your work and its contribution to the world, how it is used and how it is helpful.
Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gc_info_seeker said:
nerf,

(A) and (B) may be difficult, but for part (C), can you find papers which have referred to your work and specifically stated so (not mere citation of your work, but actually discussing your work in the text) ? Can you get letter(s) from these author(s) ?

You may want to speak to an experienced attorney who can organize the facts in a much better way.
Click to expand...

In one citation there is a paragraph that seems to be discussing my work marginally. (I do get the reference letter from this author, but did not submit it in initial petition)

Below is the quote:

"The aforementioned investigations of IPA in the setting of SFM have focused on open-loop systems without any feedback. This means that the inflow-rate process is independent of the overflow rate and there is no flow control
or congestion control. Therefore, spillover fluid is deemed lost and is not retransmitted. In the context of telecommunications, this can be justified in UDP applications, but not for TCP or any other network protocols having feedback control on the inflow rate. Now most congestion control techniques are based on two principles: reducing the inflow rate in response to congestion signals, and turning away traffic at a network’s ingress point. The latter principle is often implemented by a leaky bucket where, depending on
the application and the network and transport protocols, spillover traffic may have to be retransmitted at a later time. Regarding the application of IPA to these principles, only the former one has been (recently) addressed, and in particular, Ref. [10] (nerf's publication) has considered an SFM whose inflow rate is reduced in response to rising fluid levels in the buffer."

To summarize, the citation points out that a problem had not been studied before and I am the first one to work on it. But it does not specifically say any good words about my work. Do you think it a sound initial evidence as "Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field." ? Many thanks!
 
good_y said:
You may submit the journal web site and the membership criteria quoted from the web site, so that the lay man (adjudicating officer) can understand. Never use too complicating words that is difficult to understand.

Outstanding or internationally recognized:
you may high light if some one has used your software or has referred anywhere in the publications. Try to get some more reference letters from people around the world, who are independent, that is what exactly they want.

review records:
If you know the conference chair, try to get a letter from him stating that you were a panel member and has reviewed abstracts or papers, and should high light that the selction was based on your outstanding contributions in this field. There are lot of terminologies the attorneys suggest to use and not to use. Use of - you are a very hard working, good person---etc is not good in a reference letter. Try to emphasize only on your work and its contribution to the world, how it is used and how it is helpful.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for all the tips. The journals and conferences are all the best in the field. So I can easily collect all the information that I need.

By the way, do you know where I can get the "terminologies the attorneys suggest to use and not to use"? My lawyer is offering little help to me and I have no idea how I can draft a good letter.

Again many thanks!
 
To make it sound more convincing, you may need a few more of such publications which have discussed your work. Only one might not be enough. The letter from this author may also help.
I think you might have the material, but it has not been addressed in your petition effectively. What you need is a good lawyer who can address the issues in your RFE a convincing fashion. Also, please refer to the following link, which may be helpful:
http://www.twmlaw.com/new/eb1_2.html




nerf said:
In one citation there is a paragraph that seems to be discussing my work marginally. (I do get the reference letter from this author, but did not submit it in initial petition)

Below is the quote:

"The aforementioned investigations of IPA in the setting of SFM have focused on open-loop systems without any feedback. This means that the inflow-rate process is independent of the overflow rate and there is no flow control
or congestion control. Therefore, spillover fluid is deemed lost and is not retransmitted. In the context of telecommunications, this can be justified in UDP applications, but not for TCP or any other network protocols having feedback control on the inflow rate. Now most congestion control techniques are based on two principles: reducing the inflow rate in response to congestion signals, and turning away traffic at a network’s ingress point. The latter principle is often implemented by a leaky bucket where, depending on
the application and the network and transport protocols, spillover traffic may have to be retransmitted at a later time. Regarding the application of IPA to these principles, only the former one has been (recently) addressed, and in particular, Ref. [10] (nerf's publication) has considered an SFM whose inflow rate is reduced in response to rising fluid levels in the buffer."

To summarize, the citation points out that a problem had not been studied before and I am the first one to work on it. But it does not specifically say any good words about my work. Do you think it a sound initial evidence as "Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field." ? Many thanks!
Click to expand...
 
gc_info_seeker said:
To make it sound more convincing, you may need a few more of such publications which have discussed your work. Only one might not be enough. The letter from this author may also help.
I think you might have the material, but it has not been addressed in your petition effectively. What you need is a good lawyer who can address the issues in your RFE a convincing fashion. Also, please refer to the following link, which may be helpful:
http://www.twmlaw.com/new/eb1_2.html
Click to expand...

Again many thanks gc_info_seeker. I will contact a lawyer and see how it goes.
 
nerf said:
Thanks a lot for all the tips. The journals and conferences are all the best in the field. So I can easily collect all the information that I need.

By the way, do you know where I can get the "terminologies the attorneys suggest to use and not to use"? My lawyer is offering little help to me and I have no idea how I can draft a good letter.

Again many thanks!
Click to expand...
1. The author should describe him/herself and give his or her credentials. (It should be clear the author is a recognized expert!):Describe trends/issues in the field such that they are aware as well as how you fit in

2. Describe how they know you and/or your work. If applicable, emphasize their independence from you.(this is crucial)

3. They should state your credentials. They should discuss the importance of your memberships, awards received, prestige of editorial or jury review for article acceptance if articles are published, and any peer reviews that know of. They should pick out one or two items form your background and stress why it indicates your outstanding ability and contribution to the field.

4. they should state your contributions to the field clearly. The author should give an opinion about whether you are exceptional or outstanding, and give a description of the significance of your work to the field. This section is critical to the letter and should be stated clearly, concisely, and unequivocally. Also, your role in various projects should be described: Were you the principal investigator/team leader in a collaborative effort?

Note, that it is absolutely critical that the author emphasize what is different, unusual, and extraordinary or outstanding about you as compared to others in the field with similar credentials, publications, reviews, etc. You must some how stand out from all the others. Letters couched in weak language may be discounted.

5. State the basis for the opinion – upon what does the author rely? Put your contributions in context to accomplishments or trends in the field.(very important)

6. Include a discussion of any other criteria listed to which the author is able to attest.

7 Provide a summary or conclusion about why the status should be granted.

8. The author should attach a CV or resume with a list of publications.

Finally, avoid expert opinions or letters of recommendation that merely find your work to be “excellent,” “promising,” “with great potential,” or “likely to be successful.” These subjective descriptions will not rise to the level of “extraordinary” or “outstanding.”

I hope the above will help you to draft a good letter.
Try to hire a good lawyer. Many people make the mistake of going to a lawyer who is cheap, but a useless person, which you realize very late. I do not say you have gone to a cheap lawyer, but we all make mistakes.
I am in biology field, so if I send you a sample letter, may not help you. still you need one please send a personal mail. I am sure if you can get some more reference letters, your case will be approved. try for that.
Good luck!
 
good_y said:
1. The author should describe him/herself and give his or her credentials. (It should be clear the author is a recognized expert!):Describe trends/issues in the field such that they are aware as well as how you fit in

2. Describe how they know you and/or your work. If applicable, emphasize their independence from you.(this is crucial)

3. They should state your credentials. They should discuss the importance of your memberships, awards received, prestige of editorial or jury review for article acceptance if articles are published, and any peer reviews that know of. They should pick out one or two items form your background and stress why it indicates your outstanding ability and contribution to the field.

4. they should state your contributions to the field clearly. The author should give an opinion about whether you are exceptional or outstanding, and give a description of the significance of your work to the field. This section is critical to the letter and should be stated clearly, concisely, and unequivocally. Also, your role in various projects should be described: Were you the principal investigator/team leader in a collaborative effort?

Note, that it is absolutely critical that the author emphasize what is different, unusual, and extraordinary or outstanding about you as compared to others in the field with similar credentials, publications, reviews, etc. You must some how stand out from all the others. Letters couched in weak language may be discounted.

5. State the basis for the opinion – upon what does the author rely? Put your contributions in context to accomplishments or trends in the field.(very important)

6. Include a discussion of any other criteria listed to which the author is able to attest.

7 Provide a summary or conclusion about why the status should be granted.

8. The author should attach a CV or resume with a list of publications.

Finally, avoid expert opinions or letters of recommendation that merely find your work to be “excellent,” “promising,” “with great potential,” or “likely to be successful.” These subjective descriptions will not rise to the level of “extraordinary” or “outstanding.”

I hope the above will help you to draft a good letter.
Try to hire a good lawyer. Many people make the mistake of going to a lawyer who is cheap, but a useless person, which you realize very late. I do not say you have gone to a cheap lawyer, but we all make mistakes.
I am in biology field, so if I send you a sample letter, may not help you. still you need one please send a personal mail. I am sure if you can get some more reference letters, your case will be approved. try for that.
Good luck!
Click to expand...

Thank you so much good_y! Your detailed suggestions are invaluable. Looking back, now I see quite some cavaets in my initial petition. Thank you very much again!
 
Sorry about the RFE

The RFE is as follows:

Criteria (A) to (C) for outstanding researcher: nonrelevant so neglected

(D) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as the judge of the work of others in the same, or an allied, academic field. If the evidence includes participation as a judge of the work of others in the field, explain the criteria for selection as a panelist, reviewer, etc.

1. Provide evidence how the beneficiary was selected to review for the journals in which he reviewed.
2. Also provide evidence about the significance of the journals he was asked to review submissions for.
3. Such evidence may include the relative impact factor of the journal or the circulation rank.

Now this is the RFE point explains very well that BCIS guys are really getting smart day by day. if qualified person gets letter/email from editor for reviweing the paper...it makes sense to explain but then in many cases people are writing their interest in reviewing and one get paper to review. In any case its at editor's choice to give you paper/grant to review. If you have submitted proofs of being reviewer than try getting more letters from editors or publication house explaining why they have chosen you as reviewer. Send them your resume which requesting this letter. The same letter can explain teh impact of their publication (which they will happily do) on scientific community ....this can be done based on detailed explaination of impact factor..........citations.....and circulation.
 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. If the evidence includes original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions, submit evidence of the importance of such contributions to the field. Evidence that those outside the alien's circle of colleagues and acquaintances conside rthe work important is especially valuable.

This is clearly asking for more independent letters.
ask letters from
1.people who cited your work but not collaborators
clearly tell them to explain teh imapct of your work on theirs.
2. independent experts with vast expertise in the area.
3. try getting geographical coverage (to prove international impact)
4.if it is industraial work try getting industrial letters too
 
This surely not general RFE but it surely asks fro all general evidence.

Even though you feel that officer has not seen your file properly you have to assume he did ........and considering that you may want to send new letters & newly presented proofs with little reference to old proofs ...............as detailing documents from original petitions is not good idea.

I sense the lack of proper presentation might be reason for this RFE
focus on each word said by RFE and answere them one by one....new evidence can be submitted and old evidence can be refered............

I strongly feel it can be acheived
ALL THE BEST
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top