Finally received EB1B-RFE in hand

S

shankyyy

Registered Users (C)
Finally received the EB1B-RFE. I have time until Feb 25 - so just one more month. The attorney only sent the attachment which gives the whole list of EB1B requirements (all six criteria).
(1) Judging other's work - USCIS has acknowledged my accomplishments and no further evidence is needed
(2) Scientific contributions:
"The Service acknowledges receipt of several letters which detail the beneficiary's accomplishments and contributions to the field. Now, please submit documentary evidence to support the statements made in those letters. Provide specific, documentary evidence of the beneficiary's original contributions including evidence of the impact on the filed".
My attorney was puzzled with this since the letters were evidence. So, how should I tackle this? Should I submit more letters - doesn't seem as though they need it?
(3) Scholarly articles:
"Please submit copies of any additional articles written by the beneficiary prior to the filing date and any additional published articles by other researchers recognizing the beneficiary's research and/or contributions. [Citing articles may have been published after the filing date]. Please highlight the portion of the paper that references the beneficiary's work and highlight the beneficiary's name in the bibliography or "works cited" section. It is not necessary to submit articles that are self-referencing, i.e., written by the beneficiary or his collaborators. In the alternative, you may also submit printouts of search results from such websites as SciFinder and GoogleScholar, just to name two. Please nte that such printout must contain the title, authors, and publication information for both the cited and the citing article. Search results that do not contain such details will not be considered evidence".
I have 7 more citations since filing my petition, 3 from abroad. Should I mention my original citations here as well?
(4) Published work about alien. In my original petition, my attorney mentioned the list of my citations in this criterion. Should I ignore this criterion and mention my original citations in the "scholarly" criterion.

In addition to my citations, have received some email invitations to write papers, to organize conference sessions, since the original filing. Which criterion will it fit in best? I am thinking I will only tackle (2) and (3) and ignore the rest. Hope one will be convincing, to couple with (1) already accepted by USCIS. Please provide your feedback and ideas. This time I want to write a draft of the response and send it to my attorney so that he can build on it and does not bungle up.
 
Hi,
I think you should focus to answer 2 and 3. It is better to ignore 4 because citation only is not for published work about alien.

For number 3, it is quite easy. You should print all papers from independent scientists citing your papers (do not add self-citation or from your collaborators), then highlight where your papers cited.

For number 2, the letters are not enough and not required this time. USCIS does satisfy your contributions on the basis of recommendation letters. It is no need to submit addional letters. In the letters, I guess it said that you have many contributions in the field but USCIS wants to know the REAL contributions. For example: Your research discovered something which has been used as a standard or a guide to your scientists in the same field.

I hope this help. Good luck!
 
As (1) is satisfied and (3) is easy to satisfy, your response should meet the criteria for EB1-OR application. But since (2) has been raised, you need to address that and I believe one of the ways is by getting letters from those who cited your work attesting to how it helped them further their own research. If any of the citing articles mention your work in a few sentences (rather than being just a footnote citation), then perhaps you should highlight those sentences in the citing article. Those researchers should also be more willing to provide reference letters for you.

BTW, how many manuscripts did you review? Just trying to get an idea of what is the requirement for meeting criteria (1).
 
USCIS clearly said that "please submit documentary evidence to support the statements made in those letters". You know what contributions were in the letters, you must give the evidence for those contributions.
 
chnhati2000/gc_2007,

I have to address both 2 and 3 as for all the other criteria, they have started the sentence with, "If applicable". Maybe even 4 becuase my attorney claimed it in the original

For #3, I had about 14-15 citations (not including self) in the original petition though it was not mentioned in this criterion. Will providing just another 5-7 (3 abro ad) make it convincing? My thought is that maybe they think 15-20 citations is not enough. If that is the case, how do i convince the international recognition? I am planning to print impact factor of the journals, and maybe get letters from conference publishers that their conference has international circulation. anything else?

For #2, I will check with my original referees but it may be hard for my referees to provide documentary evidence since most of my work in the form of DOE reports (nuclear and turbine related) do not get published. So what more can they write without having anything proof to show except already those that I have published? On the other hand, i could potentially try to get new references who have cited my work but will it fly? My attorney did not indicate to get letters but only to provide any corroborative evidence.

For #1, I had about 10 review papers (6-7 journals) plus 3 conference. Also, reviewer for a graduate student contest. In addition, my attorney had added an "invitation to write a book chapter" in this criterion - is this where it belongs?
 
chnhati2000 said:
USCIS clearly said that "please submit documentary evidence to support the statements made in those letters". You know what contributions were in the letters, you must give the evidence for those contributions.
Click to expand...

you are right..chn..i know out of the 5 letters, 3 (2 supervisors) of them said my work has had impact - one saying it has been incorporated in DOE's nuclear plan and the other in DOE's turbine program.
 
For 3. You should print all papers from independent scientists citing your papers, then highlight where your papers cited.
For 2. I think you should not get any additional letters because it is not a REAL evidence. I agreed with gc_2007: If any of the citing articles mention your work in a few sentences (rather than being just a footnote citation), then perhaps you should highlight those sentences in the citing article. In addition, you should explain how they cited your idea in each of their papers and indicated how important is your work. It is a real thing.
 
For (3), did you provide the printout from SciFinder/ISI Web indicating the cited article and the citing articles? Alternatively, did you provide printouts of each of the 15 articles with appropriate sections highlighted? Initially (3) looked easy for me but perhaps depends on what you provided to USCIS. If you already provided with all necessary information, then I guess they are looking for more citations. But if you mentioned the citations in a table rather than printout from websites, then it should be simpler to satisfy.

For (1), have you written 10 review papers (unheard of in my field for a young scientist!) or did you review 10 manuscripts?
 
"If that is the case, how do i convince the international recognition" If your papers are cited by many scientists in many countries. It is the international recognition.

Impact factor of the journals, and maybe get letters from conference publishers that their conference has international circulation is NOT the international recognition
 
by the time i write a reply, i get kicked out..

for citations, i provided both the cited article/citing article from SCI/google scholar, and also the original article. not sure what did the attorney submit? luckily i have 5-7 more. hopefully, that should work

i reviewed 10 manuscripts. not write review papers.

ok..chn..i understood..

what about email invitations to write papers, submit papers to journals, arrange conferences, (i got 4-5 last year) - i think i could use some in #3 (or #2 if possible) coz they refer to my past research. my original referees mentioned that my work has made impact, and i cud potentially use these email invitations to prove the impact it has already had. let me know if i'm on the right track.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For #2, submitting letters from those who have cited your papers (and attach their paper(s) too) might help. Submit the DOE doc which cites/incorporates stuff from your papers.

For #3, more citations should do. Put those articles first which cite by your name and then those that cite by number. Encircle your name with red ballpoint pen.

For #4, it is true that citation (e.g. ...XXX et al. (2008) or ...[3]..) is not enough at all for #4. If someone else wrote a review article in which they devoted several lines (say, more than 5) or paragraph(s) then submit that and highlight those lines. Encircle your name with red ballpoint pen.if it appears there. [[ You want to make it easy for the examiner to see your name]]. On the first page of the review article, highlight or encircle the word "Review" if it appears near the journal logo, article title, abstract, etc. My lawyer told that "review articles" by others devoting some space to describe your work are regarded well by the examiners. I think the DOE writeup you mentioned might help in this regard.

Actually, my lawyer says that put #4 only if you have more than 3 such documents. If you decide to not claim #4, be sure to mention that very clearly to avoid any confusion.

My experience is that the way of presentation matters a lot. I was stunned by my lawyer's skills in this regard.

All the Best.
 
ok. thanks all. this is what i'm thinking
for #2 - scientific contributions-provide papers/reports (new citations) that sort of indicates/adds credence to what my original referees had mentioned initially. also, try to get more letters from those who have cited my papers.
#3 - new citations including one in a book apparently published in 2007 but somehow i could not locate it when I filed my petition initially in 2007. query:now that i found the book petition, can i just include that ? do i have to give any reason why it was not included in the original petition?
#4 - the book citation talks about my work using two papers at two different places - not really 5 lines each but definitely couple lines. the book is more like a review book; so just brief recognition of important work. also couple of new citations recognize my work (not just in bibliography) in a sentence or two. mrm-did you claim #4; if so, do you think i have a chance here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
in #3, no need to mention anything about the book that cites your work, may be keep it at the end. Keep those which in 2008+ in the beginning.

I had claimed #4. Here is what I had:

=======
1 review paper devoted 4-5 paragraphs (almost 2/3 page) describing my work

1 review paper devoted about 2 and half paragraph at a total of three places

1 news-like article of 1/3rd page summarizing one of my papers although it did not mention my name as I was 2nd author. So, I attached the first page of my paper highlighting & encircling my name in red pen.

1 university-news article related to my project for which we got $XM grant. Initially only my boss's name was there. But later I requested them to add my name just in once sentence as it could help with my I-140.
=======

For you, #4 does not seem that strong but its your call. By the way, citation in a book chapter seems to carry more weight than in an journal article. If you can find a review of that book by someone then attach that. If you do include #4 (include this section after #2 and #3), if the concerned sentences describing your work include words like "new" or other such adjectives adding value to your work, highlight and underline them.

All the best.

shankyyy said:
ok. thanks all. this is what i'm thinking
for #2 - scientific contributions-provide papers/reports (new citations) that sort of indicates/adds credence to what my original referees had mentioned initially. also, try to get more letters from those who have cited my papers.
#3 - new citations including one in a book apparently published in 2007 but somehow i could not locate it when I filed my petition initially in 2007. query:now that i found the book petition, can i just include that ? do i have to give any reason why it was not included in the original petition?
#4 - the book citation talks about my work using two papers at two different places - not really 5 lines each but definitely couple lines. the book is more like a review book; so just brief recognition of important work. also couple of new citations recognize my work (not just in bibliography) in a sentence or two. mrm-did you claim #4; if so, do you think i have a chance here?
Click to expand...
 
Hi have a question.
My employer is filing my H1. But I have heard he need to mention the position hes offering in his company so do I have to stick to the same position throughout my H1 or can I change my position, If i switch my employer.

Thanks
 
All,

I recd CRIS email about my I-140 approval. Thanks to one and all for your help. Hopefully, the 'green' comes through soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Congratulations shankyyy. That's wonderful news.

Can you please tell us what you provided in your RFE response? From the posts a month ago, (2) was the most difficult to prove. Did you get letters from those you cited your work? And did you address (3) by just providing additional citations?

Thanks.
 
For #3, I had my new citations in journals, a book, and a USDOE report. For #2, I had only the USDOE report, and a proposal (which resulted in a funding) that one of my referees had mentioned in his letter; also had three additional letters. Since I did not see the final petition letter, I am not sure whether my attorney used the letters since initially he was of the opinion that letters were not needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top