NIW Denial @NSC

C

CD4help

Registered Users (C)
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.
 
Man, this is scary. Sorry to hear that! You definitely have more than enough for an NIW. Did you DIY or hire a lawyer? I am guessing there is something wrong in your cover letter and the guy happed to be p*ssed off that day because of something else.

Sorry I don't have any else to say. Hope you have a good day and find some way to fight back.
 
Here are my 2 cents:
You do have a very good record of citations. But the number of publications, esp. you are only 1st author for two out of four papers you have, is definitely a red sign.
Apparently , you were also unlucky to have a very touch immigration officer. It seems to me that he is very picky about the overall contribution you had in all your achievements. I guess he was probably looking for evidence of a continuous record of success. For example, if you have 20 papers and you are 1st authors of 16 of them, then it is hardly arguable that you have contributed primarily to those papers. However, if you only have 4 papers and you are 1st authors for only half of them (2 papers, an even smaller number), the officer will think you probably got them by some luck. At least, that is what I felt when I read the message you posted.
Nevertheless, I think your case looks good and it should be approved. I suggest to submit another I-140 and focus on the issues about your continuous and major contribution. Good luck!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
don't lose you heart .. efile you case immediately so that it goes to TSC ... hire a good lawyer or write a good cover letter ! I am sure you will be approved ! be sure to file AOS too ! consider this as good sign as you got the results before it's too late to file AOS ... good luck !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, Arthur, I will only blame the officer and the cover letter. 4 is not a big number but it is enough for NIW, especially accomponied with his citations.
 
Yeah, I agree that the officer should be the one to blame, but my point is that since you do not have any control over the officer your case will be assigned to, What you can do is to realize your "weakness" and try to present the whole case as strong as possible. I have seen people with fewer papers and fewer citations to get even EB1A approved, so there is no fairness in green card application. Blaming the officer is not useful, either.
 
True. But I think we need more details on how and who you presented your case. Without knowing your mistakes, we can hardly help anything.
 
Thank you all for the quick reply

Thank all of you for the quick reply. It is definitely not my day today - my HDD seems dying and I am rescuing my files....Anyway, I admit that 4 papers is not a pretty number, but there are various reasons why some people do not have high numbers of publications. For one thing, the nature of your research: if you have experiments that take more than 7 months to complete, then apparently your chance of getting 5 papers in two years is not too great. Unfortunately, that is my case - though I explained this clearly in my reply to RFE. Well, apparently the adjudicator did buy it. The other thing is quality vs. quantity. I think our fellow researcher friends all know well that some people just try to get as many publications as possible, without caring too much about what kind of journals they sumbit their papers to (I know a few here at my university). To the other extreme, we have people who will refuse to publish their stuff unless it is in Nature, Science, Cell, etc (we got a couple of them in my institute as well. Unfortunately, my PhD advisor is one of them). We all know well that it generally takes longer to publish stuff in high-ranking journals because you often have to revise (sometimes multiple revisions) before it is accepted. So, you have the choice to do some quick-and-dirty experiments and get quick (and multiple) publications in less stringent journals (and likely but not necessarily, less citations in the future), or you can wait until you got everything perfect (almost) and send it to prestigious journals. Which one do you think is making morte significant contributions to the field? Hard to say. I am honestly puzzled - what kind of evidence is good enough to set you apart from the majority of the crowd in the field?

So, I guess the majority vote here is to re-file rathert than appeal, right? Can we do both?

Thank you everyone for the support and further suggestions are welcome!
 
YouApproved said:
True. But I think we need more details on how and who you presented your case. Without knowing your mistakes, we can hardly help anything.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Well, I do have a lawyer, but I am not sure whether he did a reasonably good job - I have no experience with other lawyers, and apparently even those famous (and expensive) lawyers cannot guarantee your success. I know the number of publication is my weakness, so I tried to emphasize on my strong point (good citations, and thus the influence and impact to the field.) I submitted 7 letters, 3 independent (and very big names in my field), one semi-independent, and 3 non-independent. Anything else would you like to know? Many thanks again!
 
Hi! I think you raised the right question"
what kind of evidence is good enough to set you apart from the majority of the crowd in the field

Evrything you present should be aimed at answering that key question.
- You can compare your citation number to papers published in the same issue of the journal you published yours. Takes a bit of time but worth it either way to convince you to re-apply or not to do it).
- You can, if it is indeed true, explain why you led or played a keay role in the work you did. Even if it is an obscure area of science for the neophyte, it can be made clear and be substantiated by reference letters.
- Make sure the reference letters you get are well pointeed to evidence a claim you make. Some of them tend to be nice, but too general to b that useful. To share with you my experience, my most time-consuming task in my own process has been to prepare the letters asking for reference letters. I wrote them, read them , and then modified them a few times... up to a point where I was convinced that I would get from the letter the evidence I needed to make mky point.

Always assume that you are going to get a tough adjudicator. Make everything nice, clear and to the point, and then read your file playing devil's advocate for every statement you make. At the end, it is going to work ;)

A last point: I think you, the scientist in your case, are the best one to look at your file that way, and to explain things in the most convincing way, once you know what you are claiming. A lawyer, as good as he/she is. will not do that for you (can help for other things perhaps, or for playing the tugh adjudicator for you.

So, refile in a little while and it will work.

Aloha,
Chris
 
Thank you very much, Chris! That citation analysis/comparison is exactly what I did moments ago. Well, slightly different: I did a search by typing in the keywords in my field in a particular publication year, and then I ranked these papers by their citation numbers, and....it is about the top 8.5%. Given the fact that my papers were published at the end of that year, the actual citation rate on the per month basis is even better compared to those with similar citations but published early that year. Hopefully that 8.5% is considered good enough for NIW. However, my concern is that even though I can make this kind of argument and claim that my work made a significant impact to my field (which I am confident to say so), it is difficult (in my opinion) to answer the critics that I was not the sole author or the PI so the credit goes to my advisor.:(

I actually did most of the writing myself, and my lawyer did some cosmetic work. You are right that we are the people who know our own research best, so it should be our responsibility (mostly) to present it in a convincing way.
 
Hello CD4Help,

Sorry to hear this. This is quite scary indeed. I think your credentials are good enough compared to many who went through this path and got approved. I would recommend that you try again if you have the time and patience for it.

How many reco letters you included, and what is the quality of them, i.e., do you have any government agencies involved, program directors, or government labs directors?

What is your receipt and notice date @NSC. My application was submitted in October and I now wonder how close are they to processing my application too? Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CD4help,

One way to deal with the argument that your advisor did all the work is to lay out in a clear way what I think is a collaborative work anyway to which you contributed thhrugh your PhD. You explain that the project, to be successfull, required key contributors, each in his/her field, and that you were one of those key contributors. The one who worked on the heat shield of the Apollo XI reentry module was not the leader of this "small step on the Moon", but without him, no mission... Use whatever analogy suits you best.

Again, it is good to recognize yourself that indeed a PhD work can always be considered primarily as the work of the advisor, but that in your case, if indeed it was triggered by him/her, you quickly went your own way and made independent contributions to the whole project.

If all of this is true about your PhD and your own work, I am sure you can convince the adjudicator.

Chris
 
JerIst said:
Hello CD4Help,

Sorry to hear this. This is quite scary indeed. I think your credentials are good enough compared to many who went through this path and got approved. I would recommend that you try again if you have the time and patience for it.

How many reco letters you included, and what is the quality of them, i.e., do you have any government agencies involved, program directors, or government labs directors?

What is your receipt and notice date @NSC. My application was submitted in October and I now wonder how close are they to processing my application too? Thanks
Click to expand...
Thank you, JerIst. All my recos were from academia, and the three independent ones were from the biggest names (literally) in my field. I think they were fine in terms of contents. As for my PD/RD/LUD, here they are:
I-140/I-485 Concurrent filing, non-retro country, NIW (NSC)
I-140 RD: 05/15/06, ND: 05/30/06, LUD: 05/31/06, 07/29/06, 07/16/07
I-485 RD: 05/15/06, ND: 05/30/06, LUD: 06/01/06, 06/30/06, 07/02/06, 07/03/06, 02/27/07, 05/22/07, 05/23/07, 05/24/07, 07/16/07
FP (I-485): 06/30/06
 
Many thanks again, Chris! Your suggestions are invaluable to me. I just e-filed the form I-140 two hours ago, and it went to....TSC (thank God!). Now I need to work on my covering letter.
 
Thanks CD4Help... What happened is really puzzling...

It is great that you managed to refile to TSC.... I wish that you hear better news from there. Be patient... It seems that NSC officer did not have his cup of coffee that day...
 
Hello cd4help,
Sorry to hear this. Your case looks strong to me, its mere bad luck on that day I believe. I wish your application will be approved this time.
I have few questions for you:
1) Did you get the receipt number immediately after filing?
2) Is that number enough to send in the I-485 forms concurrently?
3) Do I have to file or can my lawyer file it for me?

Your inputs are eagerly awaited.

Good luck!
 
Quick answer:
- You get right away a confirmation receipt with your Receipt Number
- You get in the mail the "Receipt Notice" (I-797)
- "If Form I-140 is pending, submit copies of the Form I-140 receipt notice" is what the I-485 instructions specifiy.

Chris
 
niwguru said:
Hello cd4help,
Sorry to hear this. Your case looks strong to me, its mere bad luck on that day I believe. I wish your application will be approved this time.
I have few questions for you:
1) Did you get the receipt number immediately after filing?
2) Is that number enough to send in the I-485 forms concurrently?
3) Do I have to file or can my lawyer file it for me?

Your inputs are eagerly awaited.

Good luck!
Click to expand...
Hi niwguru,
To answer your questions:
1) Yes, once you paid the filing fee online, you got the receipt number. You will get the official Receipt Notice (Form I-797) by regular mail within 7-10 days (well, this could be longer, given the current flood of I-485 received by the USCIS).
2) Officially, you need to attach a copy of Form I-797 to your I-485 petition. However, the USCIS is very nice this time (quite unusual, isn't it?:rolleyes: ): you can file I-485 WITHOUT I-797, as long as you follow their special instructions. You can find more detail here: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf (read the last Q nad A)
3) Either you or your lawyer can e-file your petition, but remember to ask your lawyer to attach G-28 form. I did everything by myself this time.

Good luck to all of us!
 
Thank you Chris and CD4help! You answered my concerns.
Well, I am really scared after seeing your case CD4....I too have 4 publications, not as many citations as yours, no awards/patents. I am trying my luck, as this is a good opportunity.

Best wishes to all GC aspirants!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top