May use this letter?

yellow_tim

Registered Users (C)
I asked a Member of National Academy of Engineering to write a reference letter. Since he is not familar with me, he doesn't want to talk about the share of my work at my group. He wrote one page letter as following. I am not sure if I can use it for my NIW since this is so different from other letters. In other letter, the writers always state that I am one of the top persons, outstanding, extraordinary .....
Please advise.


To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is written at the request of Dr. xxxx of the University of xxxxx who is an applicant for permanent residency.
While I have briefly met Dr. xxxx at a scientific meeting, I do not know him well enough to
serve as a character witness. My limited contact with him is my only reason for caution on the
character issue. I am able to make a comment on his scientific contribution and, indirectly
thereby, on his potential future contributions.
In particular, I will comment on the scientific paper by Dr.xxxx and D.J. Smith entitled
“x-----------” published recently in the Proceedings of the, Vol. 30
(2004), pp.1-20. The topic of combustion is an area of my expertise; I have
published many papers plus a book on that subject. A brief biographical sketch is attached for
your review. More details can be found at http://

The paper by xxx and Smith addresses ignition chemistry for a two-phase mixture of fuel
and air undergoing turbulent fluctuations. A predictive capability is developed in that work by
the use of computational methods. It is a complex problem that requires the integration of
several scientific disciplines: oxidation chemistry, droplet heating and vaporization, turbulent
flows, and computational methods. Furthermore, the most advanced knowledge from each of
these disciplines is required.
Dr. xxxx and Smithhave performed a useful work with this paper that meets the highest
publication standards. Note that publication in the Proceedings of xxxx is
highly regarded; they have a higher rejection rate than most journals. Several anonymous
reviewers must support the paper before it is published. I was not a reviewer so my positive
opinion is independent of the publication decision. xxxx and Smith have shown mastery that
places their work at the forefront of the field. Only a few experts on turbulent spray combustion
computations currently exist in the United States. Some other researchers have gone further in
treating three-dimensional behavior but xxxx and Smith have gone further with the description of the oxidation kinetics.
Turbulent spray combustion is a vital area to both the economy and the national defense. The burning of liquid fuels must be understood better to achieve goals concerning conservation of energy, generation of air pollutants, and propulsion for jet engines and rockets.
 
It has some good features to it. However adding more content will help. Also the letter reads a little awkwardly (my opinion) in the beginning when the writer talks about not being able to judge your "character". IMHO I-140 application is not the proper place to judge ones character and as a result it would be best if the writer dropped that reference. He/she could just state that " I have met Dr XXX at and am aware of the very exciting piece of research being performed by him and XXX at XXX, highlighted by the PNAS paper XXXXX.
 
yellow_tim said:
I asked a Member of National Academy of Engineering to write a reference letter. Since he is not familar with me, he doesn't want to talk about the share of my work at my group. He wrote one page letter as following. I am not sure if I can use it for my NIW since this is so different from other letters. In other letter, the writers always state that I am one of the top persons, outstanding, extraordinary .....
Please advise.


To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is written at the request of Dr. xxxx of the University of xxxxx who is an applicant for permanent residency.
While I have briefly met Dr. xxxx at a scientific meeting, I do not know him well enough to
serve as a character witness. My limited contact with him is my only reason for caution on the
character issue. I am able to make a comment on his scientific contribution and, indirectly
thereby, on his potential future contributions.
In particular, I will comment on the scientific paper by Dr.xxxx and D.J. Smith entitled
“x-----------” published recently in the Proceedings of the, Vol. 30
(2004), pp.1-20. The topic of combustion is an area of my expertise; I have
published many papers plus a book on that subject. A brief biographical sketch is attached for
your review. More details can be found at http://

The paper by xxx and Smith addresses ignition chemistry for a two-phase mixture of fuel
and air undergoing turbulent fluctuations. A predictive capability is developed in that work by
the use of computational methods. It is a complex problem that requires the integration of
several scientific disciplines: oxidation chemistry, droplet heating and vaporization, turbulent
flows, and computational methods. Furthermore, the most advanced knowledge from each of
these disciplines is required.
Dr. xxxx and Smithhave performed a useful work with this paper that meets the highest
publication standards. Note that publication in the Proceedings of xxxx is
highly regarded; they have a higher rejection rate than most journals. Several anonymous
reviewers must support the paper before it is published. I was not a reviewer so my positive
opinion is independent of the publication decision. xxxx and Smith have shown mastery that
places their work at the forefront of the field. Only a few experts on turbulent spray combustion
computations currently exist in the United States. Some other researchers have gone further in
treating three-dimensional behavior but xxxx and Smith have gone further with the description of the oxidation kinetics.
Turbulent spray combustion is a vital area to both the economy and the national defense. The burning of liquid fuels must be understood better to achieve goals concerning conservation of energy, generation of air pollutants, and propulsion for jet engines and rockets.


The letter may be unusual but to be honest it has a lot of sentences which are very weak and might hurt you more than it will help your case. First of all it is very important to describe your field an your accomplishment in terms that everybody not only expertes can understand it and this guy fails completely. Than there are only very few sentences which describe your accomplishments in a positive way and even these sentences are not very strong. In addition there are so many sentences where I wonder if this guy ever read his own letter once.
"While I have briefly met Dr. xxxx at a scientific meeting, I do not know him well enough to serve as a character witness. My limited contact with him is my only reason for caution on the character issue. I am able to make a comment on his scientific contribution and, indirectly thereby, on his potential future contributions." - Says more or less I have no clue about this person because he is not well known enough in the scientific community that everybody knows him but I was asked to write something and i didn't want to say no. And never use words like "potential future contributions" since it looks like you haven't achieved anything yet but perhaps something might happen in the future.

"Dr. xxxx and Smithhave performed a useful work with this paper that meets the highest publication standards." - Useful work, what was this guy thinking ? Useful work is pretty much the worst description I can imagine.

"Note that publication in the Proceedings of xxxx is
highly regarded; they have a higher rejection rate than most journals. Several anonymous reviewers must support the paper before it is published." - That's the case for pretty much every journal and if he can't back up his claim with evidence they are pretty much useless.

"xxxx and Smith have shown mastery that
places their work at the forefront of the field. Only a few experts on turbulent spray combustion computations currently exist in the United States. Some other researchers have gone further in treating three-dimensional behavior but xxxx and Smith have gone further with the description of the oxidation kinetics." - The only useful sentences in this letter but not really good written and still too weak.

Overall I don;t really like this letter at all but again that is my opinion and I don;t know waht other letters your have.
 
nikkasingh & honkman,

Thanks for your responses.
I am also worried about the points Honkman has mentioned.
If I am something, everyone in the field should know me.
If I can find another big guy, I will discard this letter since it may hurt my application.
 
Why not ask him to revise him. Send him an email that your "Attorney" says that so and so line would be detrimental to approval of your case. Send this big shot your reviesed version with request and also include more powerful statements about your work. I think this might just work.

Best,
 
better than say not no

I just think , the writer not so willing to recomm. you, but not to say NO.

It may be the situation we may need to face for applying Immigartion.
so treat this as usual .
Do as much as we can.
 
Either request him once again to delete those detrimental sentences. If he does not then dont submit this letter. This letter may work against your approval.
 
I suggest to try, why not try, though it is something like to "force" him to do so.


But I think, that : It is not A wholely useless letter, at least, it is the opinion from a person that not known about you. Let us think about it .
 
Top