This post has been updated in light of new information
Anyway, back to JerIst's latest post: You had written above "But clearly, my application was complete and should have been approved because I am having an advanced degree, I am according to their admission seeking a job with high intrinsic merit, and they agree that the evidence I submitted shows that the scope is national"
Yes, you should have been approved and I'm sure you will be. In your RFE, I see two parts. The first is the part that you need to pay a lot more attention to:
Please submit any available additional documentary evidence that, as of the petition priority date, you had a degree of influence on your field that distinguishes you from other scientists with comparable academic/professional qualifications. The evidence may include, for example, copies of additional published articles that cite or otherwise recognize your research achievments. Similarly, evidence of official recognition conferred on you by governmental entities or professional organizations may also be submitted.
This paragraph above deals exclusively with the third prong of the NIW conditions - that you demonstrate that waiving the labor certification for you will benefit the national interest more than imposing it will. Do not confuse this with the requirements for 'exceptional ability' which is a separate matter (see below). The adjudicator is apparently not satisfied (or did not carefully read your petition well enough to see) that you have demonstrated your compliance with this third prong. Here is where your plan to provide additional letters, citations, etc will be paramount. In this paragraph alone, the RFE makes sense. Remember, even if you hold an advanced degree, you must still fulfill all three prongs of the NIW: national scope, intrinsic merit, and outweighing the benefit to the national interest of requesting a labor certification. As you said, they acknowledge that you satisfy the first two, but the last one of these is the most difficult, and the evidence being requested in the paragraph above deals with this third prong. Again, this is separate from the requirements of "exceptional ability".
However:
The second half of your RFE is, as we have come to conclude, is confusing:
If applicable, please submit evidence in the form of letters from current or former emploers showing that you have at least ten years of full-time employment experience in your field of endeavor.
Please submit evidence of your annual salary, or remunerations for your services in your field as evidence of your exceptional ability.
Please submit evidence of your memberships in professionals associations.
Please submit additional avidence of your personal recognition for achievements and significant contributions to your field by peers, governmental entities, or professional organizations.
These are requirements to demonstrate exceptional ability for those who want to apply for EB-2 (regardless of whether under NIW or LC) but do not have an advanced degree, and this second half has nothing to do with the NIW per se. You obviously do have an advanced degree, and these conditions to prove exceptional ability at first glance should not apply to you. However: it appears that many lawyers are now of the experience that a successful NIW petition must demonstrate 'exceptional ability' as much as possible, and it is not sufficient to just satisfy the three prongs of NIW (the last being the hardest and longest) and show your advanced degree alongside them.
Rather, a good petition apparently must merge the three prongs of NIW (national scope, intrinsic merit, and evidence that you would benefit the nation more than a similarly-qualified US citizen peer would to justify waiving the labor certification requirement as in the national interest rather than imposing it) with evidence to show 'exceptional ability' under EB-2 as much as possible. Different lawyers have different methods of achieving this, and similarly, different adjudicators each have their own criteria for evaluating this whole package.
My guess is that you already know all of this by now
Anyway, back to JerIst's latest post: You had written above "But clearly, my application was complete and should have been approved because I am having an advanced degree, I am according to their admission seeking a job with high intrinsic merit, and they agree that the evidence I submitted shows that the scope is national"
Yes, you should have been approved and I'm sure you will be. In your RFE, I see two parts. The first is the part that you need to pay a lot more attention to:
Please submit any available additional documentary evidence that, as of the petition priority date, you had a degree of influence on your field that distinguishes you from other scientists with comparable academic/professional qualifications. The evidence may include, for example, copies of additional published articles that cite or otherwise recognize your research achievments. Similarly, evidence of official recognition conferred on you by governmental entities or professional organizations may also be submitted.
This paragraph above deals exclusively with the third prong of the NIW conditions - that you demonstrate that waiving the labor certification for you will benefit the national interest more than imposing it will. Do not confuse this with the requirements for 'exceptional ability' which is a separate matter (see below). The adjudicator is apparently not satisfied (or did not carefully read your petition well enough to see) that you have demonstrated your compliance with this third prong. Here is where your plan to provide additional letters, citations, etc will be paramount. In this paragraph alone, the RFE makes sense. Remember, even if you hold an advanced degree, you must still fulfill all three prongs of the NIW: national scope, intrinsic merit, and outweighing the benefit to the national interest of requesting a labor certification. As you said, they acknowledge that you satisfy the first two, but the last one of these is the most difficult, and the evidence being requested in the paragraph above deals with this third prong. Again, this is separate from the requirements of "exceptional ability".
However:
The second half of your RFE is, as we have come to conclude, is confusing:
If applicable, please submit evidence in the form of letters from current or former emploers showing that you have at least ten years of full-time employment experience in your field of endeavor.
Please submit evidence of your annual salary, or remunerations for your services in your field as evidence of your exceptional ability.
Please submit evidence of your memberships in professionals associations.
Please submit additional avidence of your personal recognition for achievements and significant contributions to your field by peers, governmental entities, or professional organizations.
These are requirements to demonstrate exceptional ability for those who want to apply for EB-2 (regardless of whether under NIW or LC) but do not have an advanced degree, and this second half has nothing to do with the NIW per se. You obviously do have an advanced degree, and these conditions to prove exceptional ability at first glance should not apply to you. However: it appears that many lawyers are now of the experience that a successful NIW petition must demonstrate 'exceptional ability' as much as possible, and it is not sufficient to just satisfy the three prongs of NIW (the last being the hardest and longest) and show your advanced degree alongside them.
Rather, a good petition apparently must merge the three prongs of NIW (national scope, intrinsic merit, and evidence that you would benefit the nation more than a similarly-qualified US citizen peer would to justify waiving the labor certification requirement as in the national interest rather than imposing it) with evidence to show 'exceptional ability' under EB-2 as much as possible. Different lawyers have different methods of achieving this, and similarly, different adjudicators each have their own criteria for evaluating this whole package.
My guess is that you already know all of this by now
Last edited by a moderator: