Please Evaluate My Case -- EB1/OR or EB2/NIW

D

doitrite

Registered Users (C)
I am a biology postdoc in Boston area, and will be relocating to Philadelphia area after getting a permanent job offer from a big pharma. I would really appreciate if you could evaluate my case for EB1/OR or EB2/NIW category.

My qualifications are as follows:

1) PhD from a top school.
2) 4 years of postdoc at a top school.
3) Permanent job offer from a top pharmaceutical company (title: Sr Research Scientist)
4) 2 first-author papers and 2 co-authored papers in peer-reviewed international journals, with combined citations of 80.
5) A book chapter (first author of two) in one of the most highly publications in biochemistry.
6) Fellowship to attend a summer course at a renowned research institute that was internationally competitive among students, postdocs, and professors. (Awarded when I was a grad student).
7) Published an experimental method (on the web) that has been recognized and linked by various methodology web sites multinationally.
8) E-mail documentations supporting the requests by other scientists for reagents, consultations, and collaborations.

Other qualifications (weak):

9) 1 co-authored paper in press and 1 first-authored paper submitted.
10) Reviewed papers for peer-reviewed journals for helping out my graduate and postdoctoral advisors.

I guess this may qualify for OR but I would like to have some realistic expectations. Also, would this be good enough for NIW?

Thank you for your attention, and your comments would be greatly appreciated.
 
If possible, try to avoid NIW or OR at VSC. OR prosessing has been extremely slow since last Aug. NIW has the same story too.
 
Originally posted by open_sesame
If possible, try to avoid NIW or OR at VSC. OR prosessing has been extremely slow since last Aug. NIW has the same story too.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with this, but isn't the service center where I need to file my GC determined based on where I live? Both Boston and Philadelphia seem to be administrated by VSC... right??
 
Originally posted by doitrite
I'm not familiar with this, but isn't the service center where I need to file my GC determined based on where I live? Both Boston and Philadelphia seem to be administrated by VSC... right??
Click to expand...

Right. FWIW, Vermont was the fastest a few years ago. Today's processing times don't mean a thing for the future.

Brian
 
Personally, I would not do NIW if were you. I think proving national interest is difficult when working for a private employer, especially for the one of your kind, since there's ample (if anecdotal) evidence out there that interests of Big Pharma are far from national.
OR on the other hand should be fairly simple. As to your evidence:

1,2. Doesn't matter
3. Very important, very good
4. May seem low, if this is typical in your area you will to specify that.
5. Good. If you have a written invitation to author it it's even better
6. Doesn't really matter
7. Counts as publication, and you will want to submit some evidence that it is recognized
8. That'll help
9. That counts as real publications since they wil be out by the time the decision is made
10. That does not count at all. You should look for an oppportunity to do real reviewing. If you get that I'd say your case is bulletproof

Another thing to consider as was noted above is inordinate processing times at Vermont Center. I would look into possibility of doing LC - it may turn out to be a faster route, although if you file concurrently it may not matter as much.
 
Originally posted by lamonte
Personally, I would not do NIW if were you. I think proving national interest is difficult when working for a private employer, especially for the one of your kind, since there's ample (if anecdotal) evidence out there that interests of Big Pharma are far from national.
Click to expand...

This is completely untrue. My involvement in Big Pahrma was the cornerstone of my NIW application, which was approved without RFE. I could make a case for the opposite. Not a single drug that is on the market today was discovered and developed by a university lab. In today's regulatory environment, there is absolutely no way a drug will make it to market.

Yes, it's true pharma companies have shareholders and they have to appeased, but please realize that the misconception that Big harma is rolling in moneyis completely overstated. R&D inflation is 20%/year and a 15% growth in sales barely covers that.

Brian
 
First of all let me say two things: a) nothing is completely untrue unless it comes out of Scott McClellan's mouth, and b) "Big harma" made me smile.

As a chemist I know very well where the drugs come from. The point I was trying to make is that the cornerstone of NYSDOT is that there is a distinct difference private and national interests and this particular election season your industry is being made a poster child of that. Do we know how the public perception of our occupations affects how our cases are treated?
 
Originally posted by lamonte
First of all let me say two things: a) nothing is completely untrue unless it comes out of Scott McClellan's mouth,
Click to expand...

:) :) :) :) .

The health of Americans is in the national interest. Pharmaceutical companies are in that business. The link is easy. NYDOT deals with not using the inability to find qualified people as a means of showing national interest.

Brian
 
Originally posted by lamonte
OR on the other hand should be fairly simple. As to your evidence:

1,2. Doesn't matter
.
.
.
6. Doesn't really matter
.
.
Click to expand...


lamonte,

Thanks for your input! A couple of comments:

1. Isn't it required to have 3+ years of experience for OR? So "2) 4 years..." suits that.

2. One of the qualifications desired for OR is international prize/award. 6) was that, and it doesn't matter?

do it rite
 
I find it is quite stimulating to debate whether it is of national interest to be involved in Big Pharma research. In general, of course, public research institutes for public and national interests. I wonder, however, whether we could make such black and white distinctions in these days of prospering biomedical enterprise. Let me come up with two common exemplary stories:

1.
Many university professors engaged in biomedical research get public funding from NIH (=tax payers' money). When they make profitable discoveries, they patent them and start startup companies to market their discoveries; they don't simply turn over their discoveries to NIH to benefit tax payers. This is common practice and not considered unethical.

2.
Many pharmas run research programs entirely out of shareholders' money. When they make profitable discoveries, they indeed profit from them and reward shareholders. This is common practice and ethics is not an issue.

Now it looks like:

Universities: public funding --> private profits
Pharmas: private funding --> private profits

In my personal belief, industry palys a fairer game than academics.

As for the national interest, I don't think neither of them put it as their #1 priority, but both of them serve it in the course of their business. Big pharmas do save lives with drugs, and academics makes basic discoveries on which big pharmas can extend further, ultimately resulting in drugs. When whatever you do contributes to saving lives, it is hard against it being national interest.

do it rite

PS: All the above being said, I'm being inclined to go for OR (EB12), because I can qualify three most important criteria for OR: 1) 3 yrs of research experience; 2) a permanent job offer; and 3) being a decent scientist:) Any thoughts about this?
 
Originally posted by doitrite

1. Isn't it required to have 3+ years of experience for OR? So "2) 4 years..." suits that.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that it doesn't advance your case in any way. Also often times graduate stidies can be counted as relevant experience. I appled for an OR after 2 years of postdoc, the 3-year issue was never raised by the INS

2. One of the qualifications desired for OR is international prize/award. 6) was that, and it doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

You obviously should mention that in your petition, however it is my feeling that they tend to discount self-solicited awards. For example grants are no go. Fellowship to attend a course sounds more like a grant, however I want to reiterate that I have not seen any decisions that dealt with this issue, so it is just my personal opinion that you may have a problem having it counted.
I forgot to mention it before, you will want to get some letters.
 
Originally posted by doitrite


As for the national interest, I don't think neither of them put it as their #1 priority, but both of them serve it in the course of their business. Big pharmas do save lives with drugs, and academics makes basic discoveries on which big pharmas can extend further, ultimately resulting in drugs. When whatever you do contributes to saving lives, it is hard against it being national interest.
Click to expand...

I think that sums it up pretty well. I think anything dealing with medications can be easily proven for NIW.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top