Help for RFE of EB1-EA (NSC)

S

shokaido

Registered Users (C)
Just got RFE for my EB1-EA from NSC today (see bottom for dates). It looks bad. All categories I claimed were challenged and asked for more evidence. In my initial petition, I claimed the following 5:

1. Published material about you in professional or major trade publications/media.
My work and my employer were in an article in a newspaper of a median-size city, but only briefly covered my work and no significance was mentioned. I will not dispute on this;
2, Evidence of participation on a panel or judge of others' work.
I has been a reviewer for a leading journal in my field for more than 2 years and reviewed more than ten submissions, and also was a reviewer for a conference. I am asked to submit document of critiria for selection of reviewer.
3. Evidence of original scientific/scholarly contributions.
I am asked to submit objective evidence for this. I had submitted 5 reference letters in the initial application. Do I need more reference letters?
4. Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles.
I am asked to document the siginificance of the publications. I has about 10 publications in leading journals and conferences in my field. Because what I did is not a popular topic, I don't have many citations.
5. Evidence of performing a leading or critical role. I am asked to submit clear documentation for this.
I have been the main engineer/researcher in my field at a small company. What do I need to submit for this?

Any idea how to tackle this RFE? Is there any hope winning this case? Should I seek advice from an attorney? Sorry for so many questions, but hope to get some suggestions from fellow EB1-EAers here.

Thanks,


--------------
EB1-EA I140, NSC
ND: 04/27/2004
RFE: 02/28/2005
 
At best, it appears that you may be able to overcome two criteria: 2 and 3.

2, Evidence of participation on a panel or judge of others' work. Obtain letter from Journal editor on how you were selected as a reviewer for the journal.

3. Evidence of original scientific/scholarly contributions. Obtain more strong reference letters. However, this may be difficult to overcome when combined with (4), where your citation rate is low.

You definitely should talk to a good attorney.
 
You may also be able to claim 5, depending on:

1) Evidence that you are the main researcher in your company and your work has a significant impact on the company and its future - this can be done by obtaining 1-2 letters from within the company and atleast 1 letter from someone outside the company from someone important in the filed your company works.

2) Proof that the company you work at has gained a distinguished reputation nationally or internationally - this can be proved by finding any major awards won by company's products, articles about the company etc

Size of the company may not matter as long as you can prove that the company has a distinguished / leading reputation in its field and you are playing a leading / critical role that has a major impact on the company and its future. They had a similar question on my EA RFE and I was able to successfully respond using a few letters, evidance that the small startup I worked at was acquired and copies of awards it has received.

logicators
 
shokaido said:
Just got RFE for my EB1-EA from NSC today (see bottom for dates). It looks bad. All categories I claimed were challenged and asked for more evidence. In my initial petition, I claimed the following 5:

1. Published material about you in professional or major trade publications/media.
My work and my employer were in an article in a newspaper of a median-size city, but only briefly covered my work and no significance was mentioned. I will not dispute on this;

Submit circulation info, publisher info on this magazine, highlight and expand a little on what the article said (hopefully a ref. letter does this)


2, Evidence of participation on a panel or judge of others' work.
I has been a reviewer for a leading journal in my field for more than 2 years and reviewed more than ten submissions, and also was a reviewer for a conference. I am asked to submit document of critiria for selection of reviewer.

Letter from editor/associate editor stating that you were selected due to your expertise in such & such. Get from Worldcat all info about journals

3. Evidence of original scientific/scholarly contributions.
I am asked to submit objective evidence for this. I had submitted 5 reference letters in the initial application. Do I need more reference letters?

Do you have any patents or patent applications? ref. letters should discuss in detail the significance of this original work/invention

4. Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles.
I am asked to document the siginificance of the publications. I has about 10 publications in leading journals and conferences in my field. Because what I did is not a popular topic, I don't have many citations.

get from worldcat all info of journals, list some exemplary international libraries that carry these journals, editorial board lists etc. Also ref. letters should talk about the significance of your papers

5. Evidence of performing a leading or critical role. I am asked to submit clear documentation for this.
I have been the main engineer/researcher in my field at a small company. What do I need to submit for this?

Letter from CEO/VP's stating why you are critical (e.g., your work generated patents which are being licensed, or new technologies for the company that increased revenues, etc.)

Any idea how to tackle this RFE? Is there any hope winning this case? Should I seek advice from an attorney? Sorry for so many questions, but hope to get some suggestions from fellow EB1-EAers here.

You should be able to get 140 approved if you collect your data properly and organize your response properly

Thanks,


--------------
EB1-EA I140, NSC
ND: 04/27/2004
RFE: 02/28/2005
Click to expand...
 
shokaido said:
Just got RFE for my EB1-EA from NSC today (see bottom for dates). It looks bad. All categories I claimed were challenged and asked for more evidence. In my initial petition, I claimed the following 5:

1. Published material about you in professional or major trade publications/media.
My work and my employer were in an article in a newspaper of a median-size city, but only briefly covered my work and no significance was mentioned. I will not dispute on this;
2, Evidence of participation on a panel or judge of others' work.
I has been a reviewer for a leading journal in my field for more than 2 years and reviewed more than ten submissions, and also was a reviewer for a conference. I am asked to submit document of critiria for selection of reviewer.
3. Evidence of original scientific/scholarly contributions.
I am asked to submit objective evidence for this. I had submitted 5 reference letters in the initial application. Do I need more reference letters?
4. Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles.
I am asked to document the siginificance of the publications. I has about 10 publications in leading journals and conferences in my field. Because what I did is not a popular topic, I don't have many citations.
5. Evidence of performing a leading or critical role. I am asked to submit clear documentation for this.
I have been the main engineer/researcher in my field at a small company. What do I need to submit for this?

Any idea how to tackle this RFE? Is there any hope winning this case? Should I seek advice from an attorney? Sorry for so many questions, but hope to get some suggestions from fellow EB1-EAers here.

Thanks,


--------------
EB1-EA I140, NSC
ND: 04/27/2004
RFE: 02/28/2005
Click to expand...


2) Ask editor of these journals to write you good reference letters with their selection criteria and go on their webpage to get addtional information.

3) Get more excellent reference letters from people who never worked with you and are the most important people in your area all over the world (Were your 5 reference letters from people you know ?) This point is the most important one of all 5.

4) Look for the impact factor of this journals in your area, (lokk at "Web of Science"). Cover this point also in the reference letters

5) Get good reference letters form CEO and VP. Perhaps people from outside your company can cover this also in their reference letters to show that your leadership role this know within the your scientific community.


5)
 
All,

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions. Looks like more reference letters is the key for my winning the RFE.

GSXR1000,

I don't have patents or anything pending to show my contribution's significance. My earlier reference letters were mostly from IEEE fellows and a US Army command director, who are all based in U.S. Maybe I should look for letters from abroad.

My two journal publications were rated by anonymous reviewers as "excellent" and "strong", could this be used to show the significance of my publications?

I also have an EB1-OR pending at NSC. I am wondering what I should note when looking for more reference letters, as my EB1-OR may get RFE too.

Thanks again.
 
Atb

Don't worry about EB1-OR right now!
Standards for EA is always higher than EB1.
However, if you repoly RFE with teh help of attorney you will surely make it home with EA.
ALL the best.
good to see that NSC is screening 2004 cases fro EA
 
eb1doc,

Thanks for advice. Did you actually mean standards of EA is always higher than OR?

Both petitions were prepared by myself. Tell the truth, I put a lot more effort on the OR case than the EA case.

Agree that I need to do the best to win the EA case before the OR case gets through.

------------------
EB1-EA I140, NSC
ND: 04/27/2004
RFE: 02/28/2005

EB1-OR I140, NSC
ND: 04/21/2004
AD: Waiting
 
Ea/or

Yeah ! atleast for experience in my researh laboratory I can say EA is of higher standard than OR.

With similar qualification when you apply for EA and OR.
Chances are higher for OR!!!

Experts can give more input on thi issue!!
 
Standards for EA are higher than OR. If you strengthen criteria 2 and 3, you can easily qualify for OR as only 2 criteria need to be met. But you need to prove international recognition for OR, while for EA you can prove either national or international acclaim.
 
Hi
I got a similar RFE for OR and tried the follwoing:
1. Got letters saying why i was chosen as a reviewer. That helped.
2. I sent in about 12 letters that claimed that I did orig. research with impact.
They did not care and rejected the letters' claims without any reason.

I even pushed this to the AAO. Same bad luck.
Claus
 
jetzt,

Sorry to hear that. Could you let us know which service center you had bad luck with?

Thanks.


------------------
EB1-EA I140, NSC
ND: 04/27/2004
RFE: 02/28/2005

EB1-OR I140, NSC
ND: 04/21/2004
AD: Waiting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top