Green Carl
New Member
Hi, All:
My I-140 (EB1a) was filed on 1/20/04, denied on 05/24/2005. Please advise me how to response: appeal, or reorganize the material and file again?My comment is highlighted in blue.
My qualification:
• 5 year research experience in a top university in China after MS degree
• PhD: 1/2000 in a famous research center in Germany
• Postdoc and research scientist in two very good universities in US.
• 40 papers in journals including Nature Materials, Applied physics Letters, Journal of Applied Physics, Physical Review B etc. (12 of them are first author), citations about 200.
• 5 research patents in US (2 are directly from my work)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
Natural Science Award Second Prize from National Education Commission of the People’s Republic of China, May 1995.
While the award may show the self-petitioner’s competitiveness within the field it does not rise to the level of prominence or significance of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award. In this sense, the major international prize criterion is meant to be even more extremely restrictive than the lesser criteria. ......... Even the general public recognizes these awards as being the highest possible honors in their respective fields, and eligibility is not restricted to any one nationality. Overall, the petitioner has not established that he, individually, was the recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or award in his field of endeavor. The petitioner has not established that the alien was the recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in his field of endeavor and sustained national or internationally acclaim. As such, this criterion has not been met.
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;
In this case, the self-petitioner asserts that he and his work has been the subject of numerous publications in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Counsel for the petitioner claims these publications include the New York Times, Nature Materials, Nature Science update, Scientific American, etc. However, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitoner’s work was specifically published in The New York Times, Nature Materials and Scientific American. The petitioner also claims to be the first author of several important publications and U. S. Patents.
A review of the evidence of the article in The New York Times demonstrates that the majority of the article is predominantly about Superconducting Compound and not about the actual petitioner. The majority of the other articles only briefly mention the petitioner and his work devoting only 3 paragraphs to the petitioner. The petitioner is not even mentioned in the Scientific American article and is cited (referenced) in Nature Materials. Additionally, the evidence must be considered in the context of origin. Corroborative evidence was not submitted to show the article’s national coverage such as the level of circulation (local, national or international); frequency of publication (how often I is printed); and the circulation (number of copies printed) that proves the specifics of this criterion. (In my response to RFE, I did provide the details of media, and I also discarded some less important media reports. Indeed some reports are brief, some in more detail. Why they do not look the whole picture of evidences?)
Therefore, counsel for the petitioner has not successfully demonstrated the petitioner has published materials about himself in professional or major trade publications or major media. As such, this criterion has not been met.
(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
The petitioner claims that the alien to have made original scientific contributions as a Research Scientist by virtue of 6 (six) letters of attestation and support from others in the scientific field. Counsel for the petitioner also asserts that Patents are of major significance and hold five patents.
The letters of attestation and support confirm that the petitioner is talented, highly skilled, productive and successful. The letters assert that the alien to be an Outstanding Research Scientist. They indicate that the alien’s work is very impressive and his contributions to various projects were consistently excellent. However, it should be noted that the definition of extraordinary ability for purpose of this benefit is a much more specific definition that is clearly different from how it is being used in the letters of support. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not contest that the alien is talented. Clearly, the documentation submitted shows such a talent. The requirement for this category has highly restrictive definition and criteria, which need to be reached in order to qualify for this benefit. It is not sufficient to simply show that the alien has achieved three of the ten criteria list above. This alone would not be sufficient if the sustained acclaim either nationally or internationally has not been reached and the recognition of achievement in the field ha not reached the level expected within this highly restrictive definition. Further, evidence of the alien’s original contribution is in the form of letters from individuals whom, for the most part, have either worked with, instructed, or have been acquainted with the alien throughout his career. It appears that these individuals do not offer an unbiased opinion regarding the contribution to the field, which have been made by this alien.
The petitioner claims that the alien to have made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribution to of major significant in the field by virtue of the 5 patents has put him in an elite class of researcher. However, a review of the evidence shows that the petitioner is not an individual patent, but was part of a team with other inventors. (2 of thye 5 patents were directly from my research and my ideas, for others I helped in the experiment. Since I used professor’s funding, and worked in the group, that is why I am not the only author of patents.)
(vi) Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
The petitioner claims the alien to have met this criterion.
In this case, the petitioner submitted evidence that shows the alien authored and coauthored published specific paper. The evidence further indicates that some of the papers appeared in such publications as The American Institute of Physics, The Journal of Applied Physics, Physical Review B, ....... Superconductivity, Citation by peer Scientists and Review Articles. However, mere submission of published work does not in itself sufficiently establish that the alien has extraordinary ability-that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of this field. The some of the articles in question were coauthored with other researchers. The petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that his individual contribution to e research which resulted in the publications was substantially more significantly than other coauthors. Numerous experts and professional publish articles in professional, major trade publications or other major media. The evidence submitted does not show the importance of the alien’s articles in the international community and how it compares to other publications in the order of importance to the field. Most professors, researcher scientist and experts in the scientific field; are required to write papers documenting their findings. As such, virtually, every PhD holder is able to present evidence of a similar body of work. The petitioner has failed to establish the significance and the importance of the alien’s articles in question, and how they specifically have set him apart from others in the same field. Therefore, it appears that this criterion has not been met. (My papers are about the discovery of new physics, invention of new technology, still the best method to make the best thin film in our field, and my method is used by several other groups, my papers are widely cited. This is supported by independent letters from UK, Janpan and US. My research has significant impact in the field. I do agree that many PhD holder and experts write papers, but not everyone or most of them can write papers which have significant impact in their field. That is the difference between me and most of them. So again, I do not think it is fair at this point.)
...... The petitioner has not submitted evidence to sustain the alien’s claim of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has not provided evidence that fulfills the three criteria needed to meet the initial requirement for the “Extraordinary Ability”, as well as proving that the alien has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The alien has not shown that he has sustained national or inter national acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.
As such, the alien is ineligible for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences, ..... Therefore, the petition is denied.
My I-140 (EB1a) was filed on 1/20/04, denied on 05/24/2005. Please advise me how to response: appeal, or reorganize the material and file again?My comment is highlighted in blue.
My qualification:
• 5 year research experience in a top university in China after MS degree
• PhD: 1/2000 in a famous research center in Germany
• Postdoc and research scientist in two very good universities in US.
• 40 papers in journals including Nature Materials, Applied physics Letters, Journal of Applied Physics, Physical Review B etc. (12 of them are first author), citations about 200.
• 5 research patents in US (2 are directly from my work)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
Natural Science Award Second Prize from National Education Commission of the People’s Republic of China, May 1995.
While the award may show the self-petitioner’s competitiveness within the field it does not rise to the level of prominence or significance of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award. In this sense, the major international prize criterion is meant to be even more extremely restrictive than the lesser criteria. ......... Even the general public recognizes these awards as being the highest possible honors in their respective fields, and eligibility is not restricted to any one nationality. Overall, the petitioner has not established that he, individually, was the recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or award in his field of endeavor. The petitioner has not established that the alien was the recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in his field of endeavor and sustained national or internationally acclaim. As such, this criterion has not been met.
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation;
In this case, the self-petitioner asserts that he and his work has been the subject of numerous publications in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Counsel for the petitioner claims these publications include the New York Times, Nature Materials, Nature Science update, Scientific American, etc. However, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitoner’s work was specifically published in The New York Times, Nature Materials and Scientific American. The petitioner also claims to be the first author of several important publications and U. S. Patents.
A review of the evidence of the article in The New York Times demonstrates that the majority of the article is predominantly about Superconducting Compound and not about the actual petitioner. The majority of the other articles only briefly mention the petitioner and his work devoting only 3 paragraphs to the petitioner. The petitioner is not even mentioned in the Scientific American article and is cited (referenced) in Nature Materials. Additionally, the evidence must be considered in the context of origin. Corroborative evidence was not submitted to show the article’s national coverage such as the level of circulation (local, national or international); frequency of publication (how often I is printed); and the circulation (number of copies printed) that proves the specifics of this criterion. (In my response to RFE, I did provide the details of media, and I also discarded some less important media reports. Indeed some reports are brief, some in more detail. Why they do not look the whole picture of evidences?)
Therefore, counsel for the petitioner has not successfully demonstrated the petitioner has published materials about himself in professional or major trade publications or major media. As such, this criterion has not been met.
(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
The petitioner claims that the alien to have made original scientific contributions as a Research Scientist by virtue of 6 (six) letters of attestation and support from others in the scientific field. Counsel for the petitioner also asserts that Patents are of major significance and hold five patents.
The letters of attestation and support confirm that the petitioner is talented, highly skilled, productive and successful. The letters assert that the alien to be an Outstanding Research Scientist. They indicate that the alien’s work is very impressive and his contributions to various projects were consistently excellent. However, it should be noted that the definition of extraordinary ability for purpose of this benefit is a much more specific definition that is clearly different from how it is being used in the letters of support. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not contest that the alien is talented. Clearly, the documentation submitted shows such a talent. The requirement for this category has highly restrictive definition and criteria, which need to be reached in order to qualify for this benefit. It is not sufficient to simply show that the alien has achieved three of the ten criteria list above. This alone would not be sufficient if the sustained acclaim either nationally or internationally has not been reached and the recognition of achievement in the field ha not reached the level expected within this highly restrictive definition. Further, evidence of the alien’s original contribution is in the form of letters from individuals whom, for the most part, have either worked with, instructed, or have been acquainted with the alien throughout his career. It appears that these individuals do not offer an unbiased opinion regarding the contribution to the field, which have been made by this alien.
The petitioner claims that the alien to have made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribution to of major significant in the field by virtue of the 5 patents has put him in an elite class of researcher. However, a review of the evidence shows that the petitioner is not an individual patent, but was part of a team with other inventors. (2 of thye 5 patents were directly from my research and my ideas, for others I helped in the experiment. Since I used professor’s funding, and worked in the group, that is why I am not the only author of patents.)
(vi) Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
The petitioner claims the alien to have met this criterion.
In this case, the petitioner submitted evidence that shows the alien authored and coauthored published specific paper. The evidence further indicates that some of the papers appeared in such publications as The American Institute of Physics, The Journal of Applied Physics, Physical Review B, ....... Superconductivity, Citation by peer Scientists and Review Articles. However, mere submission of published work does not in itself sufficiently establish that the alien has extraordinary ability-that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of this field. The some of the articles in question were coauthored with other researchers. The petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that his individual contribution to e research which resulted in the publications was substantially more significantly than other coauthors. Numerous experts and professional publish articles in professional, major trade publications or other major media. The evidence submitted does not show the importance of the alien’s articles in the international community and how it compares to other publications in the order of importance to the field. Most professors, researcher scientist and experts in the scientific field; are required to write papers documenting their findings. As such, virtually, every PhD holder is able to present evidence of a similar body of work. The petitioner has failed to establish the significance and the importance of the alien’s articles in question, and how they specifically have set him apart from others in the same field. Therefore, it appears that this criterion has not been met. (My papers are about the discovery of new physics, invention of new technology, still the best method to make the best thin film in our field, and my method is used by several other groups, my papers are widely cited. This is supported by independent letters from UK, Janpan and US. My research has significant impact in the field. I do agree that many PhD holder and experts write papers, but not everyone or most of them can write papers which have significant impact in their field. That is the difference between me and most of them. So again, I do not think it is fair at this point.)
...... The petitioner has not submitted evidence to sustain the alien’s claim of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has not provided evidence that fulfills the three criteria needed to meet the initial requirement for the “Extraordinary Ability”, as well as proving that the alien has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The alien has not shown that he has sustained national or inter national acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.
As such, the alien is ineligible for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences, ..... Therefore, the petition is denied.
I just completed my RFE (EB1A) on 9th June 2005. From your case, I don't think I have the chance to get approved.