hi Folks
After 15 months of wait, I got a nasty RFE from NSC on my EA I-140. Before I get to that, here is my brief case: MS,PhD in engineering from US univ, 3 years post-doc in federal govt lab, followed by position in the same lab through conuslting company. 14 journal papers, some 20 or so conference papers, 40 citations at time of submission (Sept 2006), served as reviewer for some journals (reviewed about 20 papers), organizing committe member in conferences, 9 reco-letters (2 from my lab, one from different govt lab, 3 from academia, 3 from industry, some of those from people I dont know). Have attorney (who specializes in EA and NIW) etc.
The RFE asks for more evidence on most categories:
1. Published material about the alien: Here I have science related websites and magazine that describe my work - and they in fact quote me there, but the IO claims that it is not about the alien and his work. The IO says "mere reference to the alien or inclusion of the alien in publications is insufficient. There must be some sort of significance attached to being in that publication". My point is that the entire article is about my work - i guess he didnt read it or I/my attorney didnt make a good point.
2. Judge of other's work: I have served as revewier for several journals, served in standard committees etc. IO wants to know the "notoriety of the people who I reviewed" - whether the papers were authored by people of any significance.
3. Evidence of scholarly contribution: Here the IO wants further evidence of the impact of the work. Specially evidence that the work is internationally acclaimed.
4. Again in authorship of papers: IO wants impact of papers. We did carefully document impact factor of journals and citations and carefully supported our claims through expert testimony and other statistics (most downloaded etc etc).
5. Leading role in organization: IO wants organizational chart showing where and how my role plays a part.
6. Awards and membership - the usual stuff - that this is not the greatest. But my attorney never claimed this as a category we are meeting.
After 15 months of wait, I got a nasty RFE from NSC on my EA I-140. Before I get to that, here is my brief case: MS,PhD in engineering from US univ, 3 years post-doc in federal govt lab, followed by position in the same lab through conuslting company. 14 journal papers, some 20 or so conference papers, 40 citations at time of submission (Sept 2006), served as reviewer for some journals (reviewed about 20 papers), organizing committe member in conferences, 9 reco-letters (2 from my lab, one from different govt lab, 3 from academia, 3 from industry, some of those from people I dont know). Have attorney (who specializes in EA and NIW) etc.
The RFE asks for more evidence on most categories:
1. Published material about the alien: Here I have science related websites and magazine that describe my work - and they in fact quote me there, but the IO claims that it is not about the alien and his work. The IO says "mere reference to the alien or inclusion of the alien in publications is insufficient. There must be some sort of significance attached to being in that publication". My point is that the entire article is about my work - i guess he didnt read it or I/my attorney didnt make a good point.
2. Judge of other's work: I have served as revewier for several journals, served in standard committees etc. IO wants to know the "notoriety of the people who I reviewed" - whether the papers were authored by people of any significance.
3. Evidence of scholarly contribution: Here the IO wants further evidence of the impact of the work. Specially evidence that the work is internationally acclaimed.
4. Again in authorship of papers: IO wants impact of papers. We did carefully document impact factor of journals and citations and carefully supported our claims through expert testimony and other statistics (most downloaded etc etc).
5. Leading role in organization: IO wants organizational chart showing where and how my role plays a part.
6. Awards and membership - the usual stuff - that this is not the greatest. But my attorney never claimed this as a category we are meeting.