I got REF for EB1-EA PP... Please help!

[BlueDream]

Dear Friends,
I did the premium processing for EB1-EA on Nov 24, and received the following fax from TSC. Is this a common REF? I am very disappointed because I submitted very strong reference letters and the cover letter was similar to what a lawyer had used for one of my friend who got EB1-EA. At this moment I need your thoughts and ideas, so I can respond to this REF. My ceredentials include a PhD in mechanical engineering from a U.S. University, currently post doc, 13 publications, 4 membership, 1 symposium organizing, 10 reference letters, and 3 citations.

(1) How many others in your field have achieved the same research accompolishments as you? How many have published to the same extent as you have? How many others are recognized to the extent that you are? Is it common among researchers in your field to engage in research such that in which you are working now, how do you stand apart from your peers as being on of the few at the very top of your field?

(2) For media who have published your research, please how this media can be said to be "major"? Are there other publications in your field that can defintely be compared as be "minor"?

(3) Are the indiviuals who supplied support letters better than you are? If so, how? Why are you the best of the best?

(4) What sets you apart from other qualified individuals in your field to such an extent that your accompolishments are in themselves evidence that the Unites States stands to benefit by your presence?

Awaiting for your comments....

Bluedream

 

[rama_9193]

Hi BlueDream
Sorry about your EB1-EA, Yap disappointments in this aspect is normal and one has to go through this, so just hang in for the moment, things will be fine. A similar situation was also posted by good_y , I think you might have already saw that, if not take a look at it, it is very helpful. Let us analyze the situation one by one…..four questions and each question has sub questions…
Part1) How many others in your field have achieved the same research accompolishments as you? – If you look into what freeman had posted an answer to a similar situation, basically tabulating the number of researchers in your department and number of publications (in research publications are the only measure as of today) they have produced in the same years of research as yours. This is my interpretation , I recommend that you read his post completely, so that there are no interpretation based misunderstanding.
Is it common among researchers in your field to engage in research such that in which you are working now, how do you stand apart from your peers as being on of the few at the very top of your field? – Answer will be based on the previous answer, because what was your contribution in the area of research is not only based on you, but your peer could not accomplish that, thus keeping you apart from rest of the stock. I think you will be the best person to know about your area of research.
Part2) For media who have published your research, please how this media can be said to be "major"? Are there other publications in your field that can definitely be compared as be "minor"? – Publications are rated, this is the most scientific method of rating and also the best tool to audit education per se. ISI web of knowledge rates the journal based on citations, and circulation which results in impact factor, this impact factor alone will tell us how important your work is, if I can extrapolate it, it is impact that your work will have on your field of research. So it can easily answered, list out the impact factors of your papers you published in and also list the impact factors of other journals that you though were not to your mark.
Part3) Are the individuals who supplied support letters better than you are? If so, how? Why are you the best of the best? – This is basically a bad job on the letters, I recommend rewrite the letters again, First sub question, says that supporters who gave letters to you, did not gave a good description of themselves. In fact most of us ignore the importance of this part of the letter and usually leave it to the supporter, but I insist that you need to write this up, this one paragraph will decide if the reviewer is going to read any further or not. This first paragraph should deal with 1) how long this person is in the research area, 2) how successful was this guy, in terms of projects completed, published papers. 3) Because of his seniority in the area was he asked or invited to be a member of committees at the national and international level, other grant review members etc.4) how many students and post-docs did he guided through out his carrier, this should give him a hold to judge you as he has seen enough number of students. And also it looks like the supporters did not clarify your contribution; focus should be on your contribution and how the field benefited from your contribution, what was not existing in the field before you and what have you changed, did you open new windows in terms of opportunities or in terms of novel explanations or novel techniques which resulted in advancement of research in your field.
Part4) What sets you apart from other qualified individuals in your field to such an extent that your accomplishments are in themselves evidence that the Unites States stands to benefit by your presence? A combinations of the above answers, your intent in the letter should some what measure up like this, never say that your contribution is beneficial to US, it is beneficial to all humankind but is will be in the benefit of US to grant him permanent resident status.

I hope it was useful, you might have already known most of the points, but I take this opportunity to write up all these as it might be beneficial to others who are next in line.
Good luck
Rama