My EB1 was denied in 2007 and I want to re-apply for it. Any comments on my case?

C

ChinaCanada

New Member
Hi there,

My EB1 application was denied in 2007.
I am thinking of re-applying for it. I have the following credentials and wanted to get opinions on my chances of approval.

(1) Ph.D. in EE
(2) 5 Yrs+ work experience in a R&D Division of the company.
(3) Just promoted to Expert (Senior) Level.

(4) 1 Ph.D. Fellowship award
(5) 1 International Conference paper award

(6) Reviewer for 2 Journals (2 papers) and 2 Conferences (5 papers)

(7) 1 pending US patent

(8) 2 First author International Journal papers (98 citations)
(9) 8 First author International Conference papers (18 citations)
(10) 20 Co-author papers
(11) 3 Co-authored Book Chapters (invited)
(12) 1 Co-authored Article for Encyclopedia (invited)
(13) 3 First Author Article for International Workshops
(14) 8 International Conference and workshop presentations
(15) 4 International Poster presentations

What do you think of my case?
Really appreciate your time and comments!
 
I think your case is strong. Did you have these credentials when you had applied in 2007? or after that you improved it? but atleast now it looks like a strong case, if you prepare it well.
 
ChinaCanada said:
Hi there,

My EB1 application was denied in 2007.
I am thinking of re-applying for it. I have the following credentials and wanted to get opinions on my chances of approval.

(1) Ph.D. in EE
(2) 5 Yrs+ work experience in a R&D Division of the company.
(3) Just promoted to Expert (Senior) Level.

(4) 1 Ph.D. Fellowship award
(5) 1 International Conference paper award

(6) Reviewer for 2 Journals (2 papers) and 2 Conferences (5 papers)

(7) 1 pending US patent

(8) 2 First author International Journal papers (98 citations)
(9) 8 First author International Conference papers (18 citations)
(10) 20 Co-author papers
(11) 3 Co-authored Book Chapters (invited)
(12) 1 Co-authored Article for Encyclopedia (invited)
(13) 3 First Author Article for International Workshops
(14) 8 International Conference and workshop presentations
(15) 4 International Poster presentations

What do you think of my case?
Really appreciate your time and comments!
Click to expand...

Do you intend to apply under EB1-EA or EB1-OR?
In which category did you apply back in 2007, EB1-EA or EB1-OR? Also, what did the denial letter say exactly?

You might want to take a look at a recent USCIS memo regarding adjudication of EB1-EA and EB1-OR applications, http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf
In some respects, the new policy outlined in this memo makes it harder to get approved in the EB1 categories.

In particular, for satisfying the criterion about having published material written by others about the alien's work, the memo makes it harder to use the citations: "Articles that cite the alien's work as one of multiple footnotes or endnotes, are not generally 'about' the alien's work".

Among the credential you mention, your refereeing experience looks kind of skimpy to me. Item (4) - PhD Fellowship award - will have no weight.
Also, you do not mention anything about reference letters from other experts in the field. You'd certainly need to get those to have a realistic chance for either EB1-EA or EB1-OR.
 
Thank you for your reply and questions!

I applied for EB1-OR in 2007.
At that time, my profile was:
(1) Ph.D. in EE

(4) 1 Ph.D. Fellowship award
(5) 1 International Conference paper award

(6) Reviewer for 2 Conferences (5 papers)

(8) 2 First author International Journal papers (60 citations)
(9) 7 First author International Conference papers (18 citations)
(10) 18 Co-author papers
(11) 1 Co-authored Book Chapters (invited)
(12) 1 Co-authored Article for Encyclopedia (invited)
(13) 3 First Author Article for International Workshops
(14) 7 International Conference and workshop presentations
(15) 4 International Poster presentations

(16) 7 reference letters:
2 letters (US, IEEE Fellow)
3 letters (Canada, IEEE Fellow)
1 letter (Europe, IEEE Fellow)
1 letter (Mexico, IEEE Fellow)



The denial letter said:
"In conclusion, the initial and additional evidence demonstrates the beneficiary is a competent researcher, but does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the field"

About Item (4) and (5), the denial letter said:
"This suggests that the beneficiary had some academic recognition as a student, such awards generally do not rise to the level of a major award in the field. The record lacks any evidence to suggest that these academic awards are an exception"

About Item (8) and (9), the denial letter said:
"However, these citations were simply brief references to the beneficiary's work within a larger article discussing the author's own work, and such articles had dozens of other citations. There record does not demonstrate that any of the articles were specifically about either the beneficiary or his work"

Look forward to your comments!
 
ChinaCanada said:
Thank you for your reply and questions!

I applied for EB1-OR in 2007.
At that time, my profile was:
(1) Ph.D. in EE

(4) 1 Ph.D. Fellowship award
(5) 1 International Conference paper award

(6) Reviewer for 2 Conferences (5 papers)

(8) 2 First author International Journal papers (60 citations)
(9) 7 First author International Conference papers (18 citations)
(10) 18 Co-author papers
(11) 1 Co-authored Book Chapters (invited)
(12) 1 Co-authored Article for Encyclopedia (invited)
(13) 3 First Author Article for International Workshops
(14) 7 International Conference and workshop presentations
(15) 4 International Poster presentations

(16) 7 reference letters:
2 letters (US, IEEE Fellow)
3 letters (Canada, IEEE Fellow)
1 letter (Europe, IEEE Fellow)
1 letter (Mexico, IEEE Fellow)



The denial letter said:
"In conclusion, the initial and additional evidence demonstrates the beneficiary is a competent researcher, but does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the field"

About Item (4) and (5), the denial letter said:
"This suggests that the beneficiary had some academic recognition as a student, such awards generally do not rise to the level of a major award in the field. The record lacks any evidence to suggest that these academic awards are an exception"

About Item (8) and (9), the denial letter said:
"However, these citations were simply brief references to the beneficiary's work within a larger article discussing the author's own work, and such articles had dozens of other citations. There record does not demonstrate that any of the articles were specifically about either the beneficiary or his work"

Look forward to your comments!
Click to expand...

Your qualifications now do not look significantly different from those you had in 2007. However, to a significant extent, the success of an EB1-OR application depends on how the material is presented in your application.
That is, it is important to provide a cover letter explaining which specific EB1-OR criteria each of the pieces of evidence that you submit is relevant to.
For example, the best paper award at a conference certainly does not qualify as major award in the field, but you can argue that it is relevant to the other criterion, namely "Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field". The same goes for various conference invitations and reference letters from other experts. Also, with citations, the current USCIS policy is not to consider simple citations as evidence of satisfying the criterion " Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field". But again, you could argue in the cover letter that the citations are relevant to the criterion "Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field".

It is good that your reference letters were from experts from several different countries, which is pertinent to showing your international recognition. However, the content of these letters is also quite important and it is possible that your letters were deficient in some way. For example, the USCIS memo I mentioned in my earlier post says that the letters need to be specific rather than generic. That is, it is not enough for a letter to say, "so-and-so is a great and intenationally renowned expert"; rather they want the letters to address in specific detail the nature of your scientific contributions and how exactly they impacted the field.

You have solid evidence on the criterion "Evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field" but, as I said, your record in terms of refereeing/reviewing (satisfying the criterion "Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field") is fairly limited.

Still, you do have a chance, although it depends on proper presentation of supporting evidence, particularly on a well-written and well-structured cover letter, and on the content of the reference letters that you would get this time around.
 
baikal3 said:
Your qualifications now do not look significantly different from those you had in 2007. However, to a significant extent, the success of an EB1-OR application depends on how the material is presented in your application.
That is, it is important to provide a cover letter explaining which specific EB1-OR criteria each of the pieces of evidence that you submit is relevant to.
For example, the best paper award at a conference certainly does not qualify as major award in the field, but you can argue that it is relevant to the other criterion, namely "Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field". The same goes for various conference invitations and reference letters from other experts. Also, with citations, the current USCIS policy is not to consider simple citations as evidence of satisfying the criterion " Published material in professional publications written by others about the person’s work in the academic field". But again, you could argue in the cover letter that the citations are relevant to the criterion "Evidence of the person’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field".

It is good that your reference letters were from experts from several different countries, which is pertinent to showing your international recognition. However, the content of these letters is also quite important and it is possible that your letters were deficient in some way. For example, the USCIS memo I mentioned in my earlier post says that the letters need to be specific rather than generic. That is, it is not enough for a letter to say, "so-and-so is a great and intenationally renowned expert"; rather they want the letters to address in specific detail the nature of your scientific contributions and how exactly they impacted the field.

You have solid evidence on the criterion "Evidence of the individual’s authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field" but, as I said, your record in terms of refereeing/reviewing (satisfying the criterion "Evidence of the individual’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field") is fairly limited.

Still, you do have a chance, although it depends on proper presentation of supporting evidence, particularly on a well-written and well-structured cover letter, and on the content of the reference letters that you would get this time around.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much! You are great!
I will take your advise and spend more time on how to present my case.
 
I second baikal3.

For EB1-EA, your chances are slim mostly due to limited number of reviews (which for engineers is a tool to make a case for "judge of works of others".) I would say around 20-30 reviews should be enough for your case.

For EB1-OR, however, I think you have good case. You have enough papers (note that there is no difference between journal and conference here) and citation. So, you should be able to claim "contribution to the field" and "authorship of scholarly articles".

And as I have always said, presentation is everything (well, mostly :D )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top