Dear all,
It is somewhat shocking to hear that my NIW at NSC has been denied after replying to RFE. First, here is my credential:
Biomedical field
M.S.+Ph.D. from a top 20 U.S. university (Ph.D. in 2006)
4 papers (all all American journals; two first author ones in very good journals) plus several conference papers
96 citations total (all independent; the two first-authored ones had 41 and 35 citations at the time of initial filing); with a couple nice discussions/comments specific to my papers rather than just footnote citations.
The nasty denial letter first dismissed the contribution I made in the two papers I co-authored, even I provided the letter from the PI attesting I did make key contribution in those projects. (The adjudicator: these general comments did not overcome a presumption that other members in the team did not make key contributions.)
Then, the adjudicator went on questioning/criticizing the two first-author papers I wrote during my Ph.D. training: he/she ignored the frequent citations of these two papers (and thus the impact to the field) by saying that the success of these two papers was due to my being "at the right place at the right time, and it does not exclude the possibility that another PhD student with same background/skill could not have achieved the same results and made the same acclaim."
It seems to me that the main theme of the denial is that I have not distinguish myself from the others in the field, despite the recos and the good citation numbers. I know that only 4 papers is low compared to most friends on this forum, but from previous posts and AAO decisions, it looks to me that the adjudicators "may" weigh more on citations as it is good, objective evidence of the impact to the field (did I read something wrong?) It also implies that at least in my case, this adjudicator was looking for something solely from me. As one can imagine, even for senior postdocs (which are probably the majority of NIW petitioners) with good publications can still face the same problem (the adjudicator can happily say the achievement is largely from your PI, not you). Does that mean I have to become a PI to be qualified for NIW? I do not think so. Am I just unlucky to have a tough adjudicator review my case, or I am really not good enough for NIW? Do I even bother to appeal? Re-file (and hopefully to have an easier adjudicator next time)? Any constructive comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
It is somewhat shocking to hear that my NIW at NSC has been denied after replying to RFE. First, here is my credential:
Biomedical field
M.S.+Ph.D. from a top 20 U.S. university (Ph.D. in 2006)
4 papers (all all American journals; two first author ones in very good journals) plus several conference papers
96 citations total (all independent; the two first-authored ones had 41 and 35 citations at the time of initial filing); with a couple nice discussions/comments specific to my papers rather than just footnote citations.
The nasty denial letter first dismissed the contribution I made in the two papers I co-authored, even I provided the letter from the PI attesting I did make key contribution in those projects. (The adjudicator: these general comments did not overcome a presumption that other members in the team did not make key contributions.)
Then, the adjudicator went on questioning/criticizing the two first-author papers I wrote during my Ph.D. training: he/she ignored the frequent citations of these two papers (and thus the impact to the field) by saying that the success of these two papers was due to my being "at the right place at the right time, and it does not exclude the possibility that another PhD student with same background/skill could not have achieved the same results and made the same acclaim."
It seems to me that the main theme of the denial is that I have not distinguish myself from the others in the field, despite the recos and the good citation numbers. I know that only 4 papers is low compared to most friends on this forum, but from previous posts and AAO decisions, it looks to me that the adjudicators "may" weigh more on citations as it is good, objective evidence of the impact to the field (did I read something wrong?) It also implies that at least in my case, this adjudicator was looking for something solely from me. As one can imagine, even for senior postdocs (which are probably the majority of NIW petitioners) with good publications can still face the same problem (the adjudicator can happily say the achievement is largely from your PI, not you). Does that mean I have to become a PI to be qualified for NIW? I do not think so. Am I just unlucky to have a tough adjudicator review my case, or I am really not good enough for NIW? Do I even bother to appeal? Re-file (and hopefully to have an easier adjudicator next time)? Any constructive comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated.