NIW Denial @NSC

hi Cd4 dont lose heart..

Did you highlight how your research is going to benefit the nation.... any disease or energy releated reseach is always good and easy to convince by highlighting the statistics affecting the American population (Like say breast cancer affects 1 in 8 women and your research would be beneficial as you are working towards a cure). Just a thought.
 
mougc,

The national interest of the research is indeed easy in the example you take (breast cancer)... But even if that one is well substantiated, you still have to take care of the other criteria...

Chris
 
Mougc, Chris, and vijaysaxena:

Thank you all for your support and advice. Yes, I did put up statistics and I was lucky that my work actually can be applied in a broad spectrum of diseases (and that explains the good citation numbers from multiple disciplines). Apparently, the USCIS has no doubt that is "national interest," but as Chris pointed out, the key is to demonstrate you can stand out among people in your field. Well, usually people use publications and citations to answer that questions, but it seems the combination of a picky adjudicator and my lackbuster number of publications nailed the coffin of my last petition. Of course, strong recos will help, but I remember that at least one of the 2005 AAO decisions dismissed an appeal by saying there was no "objective evidence" to support the claims/appraisals made by the reference letter writers. That's why I feel frustrated because I really emphasized the objective evidence (citations, apparently). I guess unless one's credential is very solid that the adjudicator cannot find any weakness to attack, we just have to accept the reality that there is always a chance that your case could end up with the hands of a tough adjudicatror. By the way, after reading the denial decision more carefully, I found that the adjudicator denying my case is beyond tough - he/she actually either misinterpreted my recos, or did not read them careful enough. Ex: in the RFE, he/she asked me to sumbit evidence showing I made "key contributions" in the two papers that I was not the first author, and I replied with the letter from the PI saying exactly that I did make key contributions to those projects I participated, and I highlighted that phrase in my reply to the RFE. In the denial letter, he/she dismissed that by saying, "....these general comments (i.e. my PI said I made key contributions) cannot overcome the presumption that a junior member (i.e. me) on a team including many senior scientists did not make key contributions." :eek: All right, maybe I am missing something here, but I thought I directly answered his/her question already? :confused:

Thank you all for your kind support and advice again!
 
CD4Help,

Unfortuately, I have similar situation as you. But, my case was denied in TSC after RFE. In my denial notice, there were no specific reasons for denial! The only words I see is "None of evidence show" all over the place.

I got 5 first auther papers, 28 citations, 8 conf. pren., one paper listed in top hottest 25 paper list, two confer awards and 11 recom. letters. Basically, I don't even think the office really read my letters. I am thinking about refilling. I have a few concerns sharing with u and others.

1) If we file secon. so soon after denial, are there gonna be some negative impact on the filing? They might ask you why you re-submit again.
2) How do we explain the question whether we have submitted immigration visa before on I-140?
3) where can I find more info about E-filing i140? I really don't know that before.

thanks!
 
Hi Tiant88,

Sorry to hear this. Well, I am a little scared - your credential is good, and yet it was denied in TSC. I remember several months ago there were a lot RFE/denials of EB-1A from TSC, including some non-PP cases, and friends on this forum joked that "looks like someone just walked to TSC from NSC.":eek: Do you mind telling us what they asked in your RFE (a generic one or a detailed/specific one)? I agree with you that your adjudicator probably did not read your letters too carefully. To answer your questions:

1) Well, it is so obvious that why we need to file it again (in the same category), right? So, I do not think we have choice, even if it may have some negative effect. However, if your credential has improved significantly since your initial filing, then you can say this time you are more prepared and more qualified than last time, etc. I do not know whether they will ask why you re-file except Part 4, item 6 on the I-140 form. I simply answered what they asked - case#, location (NSC or TSC), date of decision, and final disposition (denial). No more explanation required (I guess? :confused: )
2) Looks like I just answered this one.:)
3)Check here: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1RCRD

Good luck!

P.S. If you did not use e-file, how did your case end up with TSC? Thanks.
 
Well, in RFE, I was asked very common questions like showing your contribution bigger than your peers and your research is national interest. Then, I submitted five more indepen. letters and tons of docs to show my contributions and the importance of work. Guess what? At last, the officer said none of evidence can prove my contribution and my research!! I was shocked!

Anyway, my case was denied on Monday. I am struggling about whether to file it tomorrow.

By the way,My case was originally sent to NSC and then re-sent to TSC.
 
Hi, CD4Help,

Thanks for the E-file site. I just checked it.

Where did u put the info for the previous submission in E-file?
How can we submit ETA 150 part B in E-file?

Thanks!
 
Tiant88 said:
Hi, CD4Help,

Thanks for the E-file site. I just checked it.

Where did u put the info for the previous submission in E-file?
How can we submit ETA 150 part B in E-file?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hi Tanat88,
As I mentioned earlier, Part 4, item 6 on the I-140 form is the place:

Part 4. Processing Information.
1....
2....
3....
4....
5....
6. Has any immigrant visa petition ever been filed by or on behalf of this person? Yes/No

If you answered yes to any of these questions, please provide the case number, office location, date of decision and disposition of the decision in the text box below.

Then in the text box right below the question. I typed in:
LIN xxxxxxxxxx; Nebraska Service Center; 07-16-2007; denied.

You need to download ETA-750B form (in pdf), fill it out, and print TWO copies, and each one should bear your original signature. Here is the website: http://www.ows.doleta.gov/foreign/pdf/eta750b1.pdf
The ETA-750B will be part of your supporting documents that you need to mail in. Your supporting material must be received within 7 business days of E-filing the form. See here: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...d1f1d6 a1RCRD

Well, looks like the guy or gal reviewed your case really did not read your stuff. In my case, I feel that the adjudicator may have trouble in understanding written English - he/she cited two phrases from my recos where my referees used to appraise my achievement and wrote down something totally nonsense (I asked several of native English speaker colleagues here, and none of them could figure out what he/she meant)...:mad:

Good luck!
 
What is your research area? Could you please post the exact words in RFE and denial notices? This might help all of us, including you. You might scan and attach it, I think.

Tiant88 said:
Well, in RFE, I was asked very common questions like showing your contribution bigger than your peers and your research is national interest. Then, I submitted five more indepen. letters and tons of docs to show my contributions and the importance of work. Guess what? At last, the officer said none of evidence can prove my contribution and my research!! I was shocked!

Anyway, my case was denied on Monday. I am struggling about whether to file it tomorrow.

By the way,My case was originally sent to NSC and then re-sent to TSC.
Click to expand...
 
Please, forgive me for stepping in your dialogue.

- 28 citations is not that much.

- five more indepen. letters and tons of docs. How many ref. letters did you give in total? How thick was the pile of documents to be read?

I'm afraid there is perhaps too much given to be read by the adjudicator, and perhaps not enough very pointed letters or documents. Letters stating in broad terms that you are great and played a significant role can be considered vague and applicable to many others in your field. Too many documents could get confusing, too many letters not that convincing anymore, ...

I would think that the way you present your case is really really important. How easily will the reader navigate in those many letters and documents, how quickly he/she can get to the useful information in the documents, how to the point are the letters of reference, all of this is going to play a role in the success of your petition.

I would not be in a hurry to refile, in the sense that your petition should definitely be different from the one you filed in the first place. If it seems that the adjudicator did not get your point, perhaps is he/she hard to convince, not that capable to undestand what you submitted. Therefore, see if you can make things clearer and more to the point, with less documents but each one more convincing... It is better to think that way, in my humble opinion, than to assume that the adjudicator was in a bad mood and next time it will be fine ;)

Just trying to help.

Chris
 
Well, Chris, 28 is not big. But traditionally for NIW, that is quite a lot. Actually one of my friend's lawyer said he would be very confident to see a case approved in NIW with 25+ citation. And he was not trying to bait my friend because he had less than 10.
 
CD4Help, Youapproved, and Chris,

Thanks for the comments. Chris, I agree with you on that. My petition letter was written by my lawyer with a high price. I didn't see other lawyers. So, I don't how good mine is.

Generally, my RFE asked for more evidence to support the common three factors of NIW we probably all know. Here, I quote several words from denial notice:

He/she agreed I have very good professional background. So, I got the first factor. But "the record does not clearly establsih that the petitioner will directly or indirectly impart a national-level benefits to US". - Regarding this, in my ref letter and petition letter we listed a lot examples to illutrate my research's impact on US as a whole.

"None of the evidence of record established that the selp-petitioner has accomplished anything more significant than other capable members of his profession holding similar creden. and conducting similar research." - Regarding this, we list my pub. and conf. presen, and also words of inden. expert. They just don't buy it.

Then, I got the denial decision. Any thoughtS?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top