I got RFE, please help
- Thread starter NIW-2005
- Start date
Sorry about it.NIW-2005 said:
Can you please post your credentials?
No. of publications, citations, current position, experience etc
Which service center did you apply?
You may have to get more letters from international scientists.
Did you include citation details along with ur pretition?
Do you have any attorney?
Good luck.
sorry to hear that !
well to me point 1 is not looking very serious as i know u are already (based on our earlier correspondence) permanent employee. ...what you need to do is go to human resource and get a copy of university rulings which says that ur job is permanent. Also get a letter stating so from them.
for last paratgraph i wonder what did you submit? did you satisfied these criteria(S)..if yes, take on each point individually and reply the RFE.
i guess this RFE is not tough to deal with!!
all the best sir!
well to me point 1 is not looking very serious as i know u are already (based on our earlier correspondence) permanent employee. ...what you need to do is go to human resource and get a copy of university rulings which says that ur job is permanent. Also get a letter stating so from them.
for last paratgraph i wonder what did you submit? did you satisfied these criteria(S)..if yes, take on each point individually and reply the RFE.
i guess this RFE is not tough to deal with!!
all the best sir!
Last edited by a moderator:
in addition to above
point 2
needs letter from chairman and /or dean stating that your iimediate boss can hire you as permanent employee...something like
This is to certify that NIW_2005 is a fulltime permanent employee at XXX at the University of XXX He is currently working as XXXat the Department of XXX. He joined this position on XXX and was offered to work on this position for an indefinite time. Along with the salary, XXX is awarded several benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and tuition reduction. I also wish to certify that Dr. XXX at the XXXX had full authority to hire XXX as a Permanent Research Employee in their research laboratory.
you surely need some more letters/representation of data etc to show outstanding nature of your work and acheivements!
point 2
needs letter from chairman and /or dean stating that your iimediate boss can hire you as permanent employee...something like
This is to certify that NIW_2005 is a fulltime permanent employee at XXX at the University of XXX He is currently working as XXXat the Department of XXX. He joined this position on XXX and was offered to work on this position for an indefinite time. Along with the salary, XXX is awarded several benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and tuition reduction. I also wish to certify that Dr. XXX at the XXXX had full authority to hire XXX as a Permanent Research Employee in their research laboratory.
you surely need some more letters/representation of data etc to show outstanding nature of your work and acheivements!
Dear NIW-2005,
I am sorry that you received a RFE. However, the RFE does not sound to be very difficult one to address. eb1doc had given you very good suggestions on how to address point 1. For point 2, you need to further emphasize how you meet each of the criterias to qualify you for the visa classification. For example, if you have reviewed a manuscript, contact the editor or the editor-in-chief of the journal stating that you were invited to review that article due to your significant expetise and reputation in the field. Similarly, if you had participated in reserach proposal panels, that is going to help. Have you been a co-investigator with your employer on a successful research grant? If so, a letter from the program manager would be helpful as well (that indicates how competitive the grant competition, and the success rate). The key point is that you have to demonstrate that you are well-recognized among researchers in your field.
Significant citations of your work may also help. Sometimes, the adjucating officer may have overlooked at your submitted evidence. Thus it is of paramount important to emplify all the evidence that you had submitted. But it is also very important to submit new evidences as well.
I am sorry that you received a RFE. However, the RFE does not sound to be very difficult one to address. eb1doc had given you very good suggestions on how to address point 1. For point 2, you need to further emphasize how you meet each of the criterias to qualify you for the visa classification. For example, if you have reviewed a manuscript, contact the editor or the editor-in-chief of the journal stating that you were invited to review that article due to your significant expetise and reputation in the field. Similarly, if you had participated in reserach proposal panels, that is going to help. Have you been a co-investigator with your employer on a successful research grant? If so, a letter from the program manager would be helpful as well (that indicates how competitive the grant competition, and the success rate). The key point is that you have to demonstrate that you are well-recognized among researchers in your field.
Significant citations of your work may also help. Sometimes, the adjucating officer may have overlooked at your submitted evidence. Thus it is of paramount important to emplify all the evidence that you had submitted. But it is also very important to submit new evidences as well.
my qualificaitons!
thank you all so much for your help and advice.
I have submitted my I140 concurrently with I485 at NSC.
here is how I have submitted it:
first I started with a breif discription of my research then I went on ot the specific regulatory criteria:
1.Original scientific research contributions to the field:
I included excerpts of referees (an assistant professor from Canada, another from USA, an associate professor from europe, another from USA, a full professor from Japan and another from another country in Europe). they state how significant the work is and my reputation in the field and that i am recognized internationally.
2.Invited membership in an honor society
I have an honorary membership that the only way to get in is by invitation
3.request from editors of international journals to review papers
two different journals ; one of them, the editor stated in the letter of invitation that "due to your substantial expertise related to the paper listed above, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above paper appropriate for publication"
4.authorship of a book chapter and 12 original articles, 10 of them as a first author
I stated there that one of my publications has been cited more than 20 times (it is currently cited 30 times), and I listed the origin of these citation where there is 12 different countries citing this particular paper.
(the total citations of all my papers are 59 but I didnot put that because I thought it is more impressive to have one paper cited more than 20 times, rather than having all the 12 papers cited more than 50 times)?
5.published material in proffestional publications written by others about my work: one of my papers has been highlighted in "This week in the Journal"..they chose only one paper out of each their four different categories each week.
6.receipt of prizes and awards: this is the weekest because all of them are postdoctoral and travel awards.
Now I don't really know what could this be handeled:
I am not really worried about the first comment, but the second one means they need a new application? I don't really know what new I can add. the things that I got recent I can't even add (I have a new paper accepted in a good journal, impact factor 10.5 as a first author; I got two more invitations to review papers ,I got invited to give seminars to 2 different places)!
I totally agree with eb1doc (whom I really appreciate his continued help throughout the process) that I need more letters; the only problem that I don't know how different I can make them than the others; and what new information they will add. and the people that are from europe that I can ask them are assistant professors, only one of them is a full professor?
I also appreciate 2006gc for his positiveness and advice. but I don't really know how to emphasize the same points that I presented in the first round? do I need to write the whole thing again a bit differently?
thanks a lot guys for all your help and support
thank you all so much for your help and advice.
I have submitted my I140 concurrently with I485 at NSC.
here is how I have submitted it:
first I started with a breif discription of my research then I went on ot the specific regulatory criteria:
1.Original scientific research contributions to the field:
I included excerpts of referees (an assistant professor from Canada, another from USA, an associate professor from europe, another from USA, a full professor from Japan and another from another country in Europe). they state how significant the work is and my reputation in the field and that i am recognized internationally.
2.Invited membership in an honor society
I have an honorary membership that the only way to get in is by invitation
3.request from editors of international journals to review papers
two different journals ; one of them, the editor stated in the letter of invitation that "due to your substantial expertise related to the paper listed above, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above paper appropriate for publication"
4.authorship of a book chapter and 12 original articles, 10 of them as a first author
I stated there that one of my publications has been cited more than 20 times (it is currently cited 30 times), and I listed the origin of these citation where there is 12 different countries citing this particular paper.
(the total citations of all my papers are 59 but I didnot put that because I thought it is more impressive to have one paper cited more than 20 times, rather than having all the 12 papers cited more than 50 times)?
5.published material in proffestional publications written by others about my work: one of my papers has been highlighted in "This week in the Journal"..they chose only one paper out of each their four different categories each week.
6.receipt of prizes and awards: this is the weekest because all of them are postdoctoral and travel awards.
Now I don't really know what could this be handeled:
I am not really worried about the first comment, but the second one means they need a new application? I don't really know what new I can add. the things that I got recent I can't even add (I have a new paper accepted in a good journal, impact factor 10.5 as a first author; I got two more invitations to review papers ,I got invited to give seminars to 2 different places)!
I totally agree with eb1doc (whom I really appreciate his continued help throughout the process) that I need more letters; the only problem that I don't know how different I can make them than the others; and what new information they will add. and the people that are from europe that I can ask them are assistant professors, only one of them is a full professor?
I also appreciate 2006gc for his positiveness and advice. but I don't really know how to emphasize the same points that I presented in the first round? do I need to write the whole thing again a bit differently?
thanks a lot guys for all your help and support
NIW2005
I too got International Reco RFE. Check the following posting
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=140363
I hope this helps.
I too got International Reco RFE. Check the following posting
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=140363
I hope this helps.
I donot know about first point.
About second point, I request you to donot duplicate the original submission. To my taste they hate duplication of original submission. Also from my experience, they donot give any credentials to achievements you have after the time of filing. So defend with what u have at the time of filing.
1. Receipt of major awward: State clearly the selection criteria, and the statnadrd of the awardig institution.
2. membership: Agaian selection criteria, how many members, and reputation of society on the international level.
3.Published material: Is their any published material about ur work in any magazine or newspaper, which primarliy cite you and your paper. This may help. Otherwise it is hard to defend to my taste.
4.Evidence of aliens participation: Again selection criteria in detail.
5.Evidence of original contribution; IF you have a petent for your invention or work, it works under this criteria. You donot need to be first author in the patent. Also, you nay need objective documentary evidence to show that patent made significant contribution to the field.
Evidence of aliens authorship of scholarly articles: You need to state the impact factorof the journal you published, circulation details, policies of the journal for publication, selection critetria of work, international standard of the jornal etc.
About second point, I request you to donot duplicate the original submission. To my taste they hate duplication of original submission. Also from my experience, they donot give any credentials to achievements you have after the time of filing. So defend with what u have at the time of filing.
1. Receipt of major awward: State clearly the selection criteria, and the statnadrd of the awardig institution.
2. membership: Agaian selection criteria, how many members, and reputation of society on the international level.
3.Published material: Is their any published material about ur work in any magazine or newspaper, which primarliy cite you and your paper. This may help. Otherwise it is hard to defend to my taste.
4.Evidence of aliens participation: Again selection criteria in detail.
5.Evidence of original contribution; IF you have a petent for your invention or work, it works under this criteria. You donot need to be first author in the patent. Also, you nay need objective documentary evidence to show that patent made significant contribution to the field.
Evidence of aliens authorship of scholarly articles: You need to state the impact factorof the journal you published, circulation details, policies of the journal for publication, selection critetria of work, international standard of the jornal etc.
5.published material in proffestional publications written by others about my work: one of my papers has been highlighted in "This week in the Journal"..they chose only one paper out of each their four different categories each week.
To meet this criteria, you'd better get a letter from the technical editor of the journal or peers in your field, to say that "only very few significant paper can be selected as 'This week in the Journal'" or something like that, you can not automatically conclude that your work is significant based on this, instead, you should put these words in somebody else's mouth.
To meet this criteria, you'd better get a letter from the technical editor of the journal or peers in your field, to say that "only very few significant paper can be selected as 'This week in the Journal'" or something like that, you can not automatically conclude that your work is significant based on this, instead, you should put these words in somebody else's mouth.
GC_SEP2005
Registered Users (C)
Toxsci said:
I think Toxsci is right. Its time to hire an attorney and get a response letter. Looking at your credientials I think the letter that went with your application was not strong enough. This is personal observation. Let me know from gurus if I am wrong
. If I were you I would hire an attorney for this for sure. Best of Luck.For point 2, they are interested in your reputation internationally.
1. Try to get about six to seven letters from top researchers all around the world indicating that you did "pioneering" research, carried out innovative work etc. Contact high profile researchers (including department chairs, deans, full professors, directors, program managers at government laboratories etc.). Feel free to contact individuals that you have met at conferences and ask them to say that they know of your original contributions to the field and your publications.
2. Get letters from technical editors stating that you are invited to review the articles due to your expertise in the area. Also provide details of the impact factor of the journals that you have published your work, review process, acceptance rate etc. This could come from the editor-in-chief or a technical editor in their support letters.
3. Clearly show the qualifications needed to be receive honorary membership, and letter showing that you have been invited to this class of membership.
4. List all citations.
5. Ask a technical editor to state how your paper was selected to be included in "this week in the journal". The importance of this, and number of readership (i.e., since all members would receive a copy of that journal you can state this plus circulations at all research universities around the globe).
6. Get letters from conference organizers that you received travel awards because your paper was selected among the best papers at the conferences or something like that. Usually there is a selection criteria for awarding travel grants. Please state this and this could amplify the importance of your contributions.
USCIS will not put too much weight on new papers published after submitting the original petition. But I would strongly recommend that you include them as well to show you have been continuously contributing to the filed. One way this could be included is in a letter by experts. They could say: "More recently, Dr. XXX has published a seminal work in .... on the subject of ...". This journal has an impact factor of ... and regarded a break-through source in the field of ..." or something like that. Do include new evidences but clearly state so and do not put too much emphasis on them as I have read AAo decisions that they may not carry the same weight and sometime can be ignored completely.
Note that all the letters do not have to carry all the information. Different letters could emphasize different aspects of your credentials. This is probably better as the adjudicating officer will not think that your referrees did not write the letters by just looking at your CV.
Your credentials are very good for EB1-OR. So don't worry. If you really face difficulty with the letters, I suggest that you contact a good attorney or get some good do-it-yourself kits.
You need to reiterate how you meet all the criterias but do not duplicate from your previous petition. You need to provide additional details that were missing in your earlier submission.
1. Try to get about six to seven letters from top researchers all around the world indicating that you did "pioneering" research, carried out innovative work etc. Contact high profile researchers (including department chairs, deans, full professors, directors, program managers at government laboratories etc.). Feel free to contact individuals that you have met at conferences and ask them to say that they know of your original contributions to the field and your publications.
2. Get letters from technical editors stating that you are invited to review the articles due to your expertise in the area. Also provide details of the impact factor of the journals that you have published your work, review process, acceptance rate etc. This could come from the editor-in-chief or a technical editor in their support letters.
3. Clearly show the qualifications needed to be receive honorary membership, and letter showing that you have been invited to this class of membership.
4. List all citations.
5. Ask a technical editor to state how your paper was selected to be included in "this week in the journal". The importance of this, and number of readership (i.e., since all members would receive a copy of that journal you can state this plus circulations at all research universities around the globe).
6. Get letters from conference organizers that you received travel awards because your paper was selected among the best papers at the conferences or something like that. Usually there is a selection criteria for awarding travel grants. Please state this and this could amplify the importance of your contributions.
USCIS will not put too much weight on new papers published after submitting the original petition. But I would strongly recommend that you include them as well to show you have been continuously contributing to the filed. One way this could be included is in a letter by experts. They could say: "More recently, Dr. XXX has published a seminal work in .... on the subject of ...". This journal has an impact factor of ... and regarded a break-through source in the field of ..." or something like that. Do include new evidences but clearly state so and do not put too much emphasis on them as I have read AAo decisions that they may not carry the same weight and sometime can be ignored completely.
Note that all the letters do not have to carry all the information. Different letters could emphasize different aspects of your credentials. This is probably better as the adjudicating officer will not think that your referrees did not write the letters by just looking at your CV.
Your credentials are very good for EB1-OR. So don't worry. If you really face difficulty with the letters, I suggest that you contact a good attorney or get some good do-it-yourself kits.
You need to reiterate how you meet all the criterias but do not duplicate from your previous petition. You need to provide additional details that were missing in your earlier submission.