EB2/NIW- qualification of the person giving the letter

[HelpingHand]

Guys

Here are my cases of reference letters which I almost converged. Please comment on each of them- in fact, I am seeing most negative factor on my application is my letters (or, letter writers)

1. Letter 1: USA, National Lab. Doesn't have a Ph.D, Very good reference, may provide CV . Do not know personally, but co-authored couple of works (because supervisor knows him and some of the partial works done in his lab). Very good reference. He is from National Lab- but he is not a Ph.D (which, I learned after getting his letter, from his title). He holds position of Manager of one section there. He is published around 20 publications (first author) and around 75 publications (co author) in the field. His works has been widely cited. Do you consider lack of a Ph.D is a disqualification- by any chance ?. I hope not.
2. Letter 2: USA, private consultant, know personally. Excellent reference. No CV, He is a Ph.D, but doesn't have many publications (may be 2 or 3), but he is an outstanding researcher. Lack of publications, mainly due to he always worked on classified projects (outside USA). However, for years, he is in US (for last 10-15 years or so, and a US Citizen) and he always worked as a private consultant to top defense companies. As he is a private consultant, he doesn't have a special letter head. Also, he is hesitant to give me his CV (there is nothing much to write- but he so experienced (consultant in my project too), better than many of the professors here).
3. Letter 3: USA, past postdoc mentor, Prof., University. So..so reference. Reluctant to give CV (publication records are not super, however, better than mine, that may be the reason). But worked with this person for nearly 5 years- so I think I must include this, even though it is a so...so reference
4. Letter 4: USA, Prof., knows personally. CV provided, but never worked in a project, nor, co-authored. University. So..so reference. Has over 100 publications. My field peripherally only matches his. That may be why so..so reference
5. Letter 5: USA, Ph.D., Excellent reference, CV provided, knows personally, worked in the same lab- though no publications in common. He now works for a top company in my field. He has over 100 publications, an expert in the field. Excellent reference.
6. Letter 6: India, Prof., Univ., Excellent reference, but not provided CV (he is damn lazy I know, even to type the CV).
7. Letter 7: USA, Prof., Univ.,. Excellent reference, CV provided. Current supervisor. Top person in the field.
8. Letter 8: USA, Prof., Will get CV Willing to provide a reference, worked together long back, same univ. as I am employed now. One of the big guys in the field.

Possible Negatives:

1). Two of the letters (Letter 3 and 4) are not `up to mark'
2). I lack `international' recognition (no letters outside USA, except from my Ph.D. supervisor).
3). Letter 1 is from non-Ph.Ds- is it a disqualification ?
4). Letter 2 is a Ph.D, but is from a private consultant
5). All the letters are from some sort of `close connections'

If you could comment on the above letters, that would be great. At least for letters 1 and 2.


Thanks,
--HH

 

[llp1]

For letters 1 and 2, if no PhD then don't mention it. It is not necessary to provide the CVs for all references. However, it is necessary to highlight the excellence of the references in the second paragraph of the letters. It's always no harm to provide supporting letters.

You are right: lack of international recognition and all the letters are inside your loop.

For the international recognition: Try to get some one you met in the conference to write you letters. Your references in USA can comment on your international recognition. Having references from outside USA doesn't mean you automatically have the international recognition.

For independent references: If possible, try to state in the letter that the reference "don't know Dr. XXX personally and never worked with him/her, ...I got to know him because we worked in the similar areas ..." (even you and your references are clear that he/she wrote the letters because you know them personally).

 

[HelpingHand]

For letters 1 and 2, if no PhD then don't mention it. It is not necessary to provide the CVs for all references. However, it is necessary to highlight the excellence of the references in the second paragraph of the letters. It's always no harm to provide supporting letters.

You are right: lack of international recognition and all the letters are inside your loop.

For the international recognition: Try to get some one you met in the conference to write you letters. Your references in USA can comment on your international recognition. Having references from outside USA doesn't mean you automatically have the international recognition.

For independent references: If possible, try to state in the letter that the reference "don't know Dr. XXX personally and never worked with him/her, ...I got to know him because we worked in the similar areas ..." (even you and your references are clear that he/she wrote the letters because you know them personally).

Thanks for the tips. Yes, for those who gave independent references, I had worded like you have suggested... 'don't know personally, and never worked with him/her...'.

when you said ``if no PhD then don't mention it'', I presume, I can still include the letter, but don't mention he doesn't have a Ph.D. But, his title says Mr.... So, it is clear he is not a Ph.D. from the title.

I tried getting letters from people whom I met at conferences, but it didn't work out. I know many people getting references through that route.

Thanks,
-HH