I recently received a RFE for I-140 (NIW). Followings are the information on myself and my petition, USCIS’ requests and my reply or my question for help from the readers here. Please help me check if my answers hit the main point of the requests or give suggestion to my question, and evaulate if it is possible for me to get approval for this case. Thank you very much! Any suggestion and comment are appreciated.
Information on myself and my petition
Filing date: Jan. 29,2007
Service center: Nebraska Service center
Category: I-140 Immigrant Petition with National interest waiver.
Advanced Degree: two U.S. master degrees
Employment: I have worked in USDA ARS through a University under a scientific research agreement. According to President Bush's administration, All federal agencies cannot employ non-U.S. citizen from several countries, including my country until he or she gets green card. However, USDA ARS wants to employ me permanently because of my unique qualification and important contribution to the Congressional Mandated Research Programs on Invasion Biology of Invasive Species: Biocontrol and Related Technologies for Exotic Insect Pests, with Emphasis on Asian Longhorned Beetle
My original petitions: including three recommendation letters from my immediate supervisor , second line supervisor and my colleague, 1 recommendation letter from my graduate school and 1 letters from the institute that I worked in China , which shows my experience. At initial filing, I plan to obtain more recommendation letters. However, my supervisor and a ARS leader confidently told me that the letters are enough because ARS has a recent immigrant case exactly same as mine, which got approval.
My Impact:
For the past research programs:
1).I published 8 journal papers but only have 3 citations for one of them
2). 1 Sole Author’s book: first print 6000 copies and second print 4000 copies.
3). 1 Chief Editor’s Book. Don’t how many copies were printed, but I can get this number.
Because the books are the Chinese book on application, I did not find any citation.
For the current research program:
1) There is no publication in no peer-review journal. But there are summaries of two papers and three posters in proceedings. No citation because the proceedings were just published in May 2007 although the meetings were held before the filing date.
2). However, the technologies from my research results were reported in national magazine for two times and in State magazine for 1 time. I did not report them in my cover letter
3).And the technologies from the research results have been used in 5 countries and 10 agencies. I did not report in my cover letter. My supervisor can obtain independent letters from the end users.
In addition, it is easy for me to obtain recommendation letters from USDA ARS (Agriculture Research Service), including from the leaders of national program center, area office and my lab.
USCIS’ requests and my reply or my question for help from the readers here
In a binding precedent decision, several factors were set forth which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. The evidence indicates that your petition meets the first two factors, but it does not sufficiently establish that you meet the third factor.
1. Please submit additional evidence which persuasively demonstrates that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required. You must demonstrate that it would be contrary to the national interest of the United States to potentially deprive a potential employer of your services by making available to U.S. workers the position which you would fill.
I plan to obtain two recommendation letters from ARS national program center and ARS area office and one additional recommendation letter from my immediate supervisor to address the issue
Proposal reasons are:
i) Due to his Chinese status, ARS is not allowed to release a permanent job offer to the beneficiary according to federal government’s regulation. Therefore, it is impossible for him to obtain permanent residence through labor certification process;
ii) Labor certification process is too lengthy and his renewal H-1B visa will expire by 08/2010. It is impossible for him to obtain permanent residence before his renewal H-1B visa expires;
iii) The researches I am conducting demand all his attention on his projects. The constant attention to his visa status is certainly a distraction to his research and adversely affects our research progress, which benefits our national interest.
iv) The subject of research which I conduct is invasive Species and most research programs on invasive species are held by federal government research agencies, such ARS, APHIS and Forest Service and so on. However, according to President Bush’s administration, all federal government agencies are not allowed directly to provide a permanent job offer to a H-1B holder from China. If the labor certification were required, it means to deprive completely all Federal governmental research agencies of the beneficiary’s permanent service or terribly restrict the employment of the beneficiary. It would be contrary to the national interest of the United States.
Do you think that the reasons are persuasive enough? What else can I do for this issue?
2. You cannot be granted a national interest waiver based on your qualifications if the labor certification process might reveal that an available U.S. worker has those qualifications as well. You cannot be granted a national interest waiver because you play an important role in a given project if such a role could be filled by a competent and available U.S. worker. Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold.
This paragraph seams to talk about the same issue as next paragraph. Do I need to write anything here?
3. Please be advised that merely establishing that you are an alien of exceptional ability or one who will substantially benefit prospectively the United States is not sufficient to warrant this waiver. ("Exceptional ability" is defined as a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.) Regardless of your particular experience or skills, even assuming they are unique, you must establish that the benefit which you will provide to the United States so outweighs the inherent national interest in protecting U.S. workers through the labor certification process that the process should not be required in your case. To do so, you must demonstrate your ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of others in your field by establishing that as of the filing date of your petition you had a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on your field as a whole. Please submit additional evidence which makes this demonstration.
I plan to obtain 10 independent letters from the end users of my technologies from 10 agencies in 5 countries to support the issue.
Of course, the issues can be emphasized in the two recommendation letters from ARS national program center and ARS area office and one additional recommendation letter from my immediate supervisor and in my cover letter
4. For example, your evidence indicates that your research work has been published since the early 1990's and you reported that it has already produced positive and broad results. Regarding your books and articles which had been published as of the filing date of your petition, please submit updated documentation of the total current number of citations of each of those articles by others. You need not submit copies of the citing articles themselves unless one mentions you by name as having made a breakthrough.
i) List the 3 citations for the publication from graduate school.
ii) Report the summaries of two papers and three posters in proceedings.
Do you think that it is helpful to list the print number of my books here?
What else can I do for this issue?
5. Please submit copies of any news releases or similar publications from Dr. Michael Smith's lab, or other official sources, which mentioned you by name prior to the filing date of your petition, or explain if none exist.
I will make photocopies of the article that reported the technologies from my research results in a national magazine and State magazine.
The reports did not mention me by name. But my supervisor introduced my work and emphasized my role during the technology research in his recommendation letter.
What else can I do for this issue?
6. Dr. Smith and you both reported that the value of tree resources at risk due to ALB could be as high as "$23
billion per city." Should this figure be $23 million? If not, please submit documentation of the
source of the $23 billion figure for one city.
This is type error in my supervisor’s recommendation letter and I copied it from his letter to my cover letter .
This figure should be $2.3 billion. I submitted the documentation of the source of this figure, but the CIS officer did not seam to read it.
How to explain this error?
If I only said this is typing error, will the CIS officer doubt that I and my supervisor treat him?
7. You placed the potential economic cost in the U.S. of ALB at $669 billion as did an information card which was issued by Dr. Smith's lab. The source of that figure appears to be a study published in 2001. Your evidence also includes a more recent report from the USDA Forest Service that the eradication of ALB from the U.S. could be completed as early as 2011. Knowing this, why did you, and Dr. Smith in his letter, repeat the dated figure of $669 billion? At this time, is that figure even remotely credible?
In the support document that I submitted with my initial petition, it was described that “The corresponding canopy cover loss that would occur if all preferred host trees were killed ranges from 13-68%. The estimated maximum potential national urban impact of A. glabripennis is a loss of 34.9% of total canopy cover, 30.3% tree mortality (1.2 billion trees) and value loss of $669 billion”
In the another support document from the USDA Forest Service said: “Eradicating ALB will eventually cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take until at least 2011 to complete”.
The CIS officer has two misunderstanding for this issue:
i). The object of my current research is Invasion Biology of Invasive Species: Biocontrol and Related Technologies for Exotic Insect Pests, with Emphasis on Asian Longhorned Beetle(ALB).
Asian Longhorned Beetle(ALB) can be eradicated from the U.S. but Invasive Species cannot be eradicated from the U.S.
ii) “Eradicating ALB will take until at least 2011 to complete” is not equal to “the eradication of ALB from the U.S. could be completed as early as 2011.”
Only if the beetle exists in the U.S., this figure will be credible
I can give lots of recent published documents to prove that this figure is still credible
8. You and Dr. Smith both reported that "currently, the only effective means to eliminate ALB is to remove infested trees and destroy them by chipping or burning" and you cited a Forest Service alert which was last revised in 2002. However, the 2006 information sheet issued by the Forest Service reported that in 2005 over 63,000 trees in New York alone "were treated with insecticides to contain and eradicate ALB." Why did you and Dr. Smith indicate that such treatment was not effective in eliminating ALB?
In my support document, i.e.the 2006 information sheet issued by the Forest Service reported said: “In 2005, 63,006 trees in NY were treated with insecticides to contain and eradicate ALB”
Please note:
1). The report did not say that in 2005, 63,006 trees in New York were alone treated with insecticides.
2). If the trees were treated with insecticides in 2005, it was impossible to declare ALB eradication from the area in 2006.
According to APHIS report, in order to declare an infested area eradicated, it must be free of any signs of ALB for four years.
systemic insecticide imidacloprid and this treatment method were the research results of APHIS. However, APHIS emphasized on its own web site that “the only assured method of eliminating the beetle is to cut and chip or burn infested trees and replace them with nonhost species” and the use of the insecticide imidacloprid only can “decrease beetle populations” but not eradicate ALB because the imidacloprid is dispersed through the tree’s vascular system. However, the majority of the beetle’s life is spent deep within the heartwood of host trees, this enables the insecticide only to reach Asian longhorned beetle adults feeding on small twigs and leaves and the larvae feeding just beneath the bark of host trees( RFE Document 5, 2007 and Document 8,2005). It cannot reach the larvae deep within the heartwood of host trees.
The facts that occurred later further show that ALB has not been eradicated from New York so far and there were still more ALB-infested trees that were found in New York:
For example, WASHINGTON, March 28, 2008 --- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is treating 77,688 trees susceptible to the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) with the insecticide imidacloprid in New York and New Jersey this spring.
9.You emphasized that ARS has declared the threat of ALB to be "the most critical issue for APHIS in the last 20 years" and the tenor of your letter and of Dr. Smith's letter was that the threat remains critical. However, the Forest Service indicates that it has the threat under control and is proceeding towards the total elimination of the threat in the U.S. Please explain this discrepancy.
This is one more misunderstanding for my support document. It is easy to explain
10.The Forest Service reported that "the last infested tree detected in the Illinois project areas was found in 2003" and that "the last infested tree in Hudson County (NJ) was found in 2002." Do both reports remain true?
No, the reports do not remain true any more.
i) WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2006–The removal of 650 trees is taking place on both public streets and private property between Jan. 2 and March 1, weather permitting.
ii) WASHINGTON, March 12, 2007 -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service today announced evidence of Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) infestation in hardwood trees on Prall’s Island, N.Y., an 80-acre, uninhabited island lying between Staten Island, N.Y., and northern New Jersey.”
iii) WASHINGTON, March 28, 2008--The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is treating 77,688 trees susceptible to the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) with the insecticide imidacloprid in New York and New Jersey this spring.
11. You reported that in order to exclude new introduction of the beetle APHIS "will enforce an interim rule" which prevents ALB from entering the U.S. in packing materials, but you wrote that this measure "adversely impacts on U.S. Trade." Your evidence from ARS reports that APHIS has enforced this rule since 1998 (although in September of 2005 it added the requirement of an international marking logo):-Is ARS's report correct that the rule has been enforced since 1998, or is your report correct that as of the date of your letter APHIS was still planning on enforcing the rule in the future? Please explain.
ARS's report is correct that the rule has been enforced since 1998. This is an English grammar error of mine. I copied this sentence from a web site that was published before the rule was enforced in 1998 but I forgot revised the tense
I don’t know what his purpose is when the CIS officer asks this question.
Any idea to address this issue?
Information on myself and my petition
Filing date: Jan. 29,2007
Service center: Nebraska Service center
Category: I-140 Immigrant Petition with National interest waiver.
Advanced Degree: two U.S. master degrees
Employment: I have worked in USDA ARS through a University under a scientific research agreement. According to President Bush's administration, All federal agencies cannot employ non-U.S. citizen from several countries, including my country until he or she gets green card. However, USDA ARS wants to employ me permanently because of my unique qualification and important contribution to the Congressional Mandated Research Programs on Invasion Biology of Invasive Species: Biocontrol and Related Technologies for Exotic Insect Pests, with Emphasis on Asian Longhorned Beetle
My original petitions: including three recommendation letters from my immediate supervisor , second line supervisor and my colleague, 1 recommendation letter from my graduate school and 1 letters from the institute that I worked in China , which shows my experience. At initial filing, I plan to obtain more recommendation letters. However, my supervisor and a ARS leader confidently told me that the letters are enough because ARS has a recent immigrant case exactly same as mine, which got approval.
My Impact:
For the past research programs:
1).I published 8 journal papers but only have 3 citations for one of them
2). 1 Sole Author’s book: first print 6000 copies and second print 4000 copies.
3). 1 Chief Editor’s Book. Don’t how many copies were printed, but I can get this number.
Because the books are the Chinese book on application, I did not find any citation.
For the current research program:
1) There is no publication in no peer-review journal. But there are summaries of two papers and three posters in proceedings. No citation because the proceedings were just published in May 2007 although the meetings were held before the filing date.
2). However, the technologies from my research results were reported in national magazine for two times and in State magazine for 1 time. I did not report them in my cover letter
3).And the technologies from the research results have been used in 5 countries and 10 agencies. I did not report in my cover letter. My supervisor can obtain independent letters from the end users.
In addition, it is easy for me to obtain recommendation letters from USDA ARS (Agriculture Research Service), including from the leaders of national program center, area office and my lab.
USCIS’ requests and my reply or my question for help from the readers here
In a binding precedent decision, several factors were set forth which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. The evidence indicates that your petition meets the first two factors, but it does not sufficiently establish that you meet the third factor.
1. Please submit additional evidence which persuasively demonstrates that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required. You must demonstrate that it would be contrary to the national interest of the United States to potentially deprive a potential employer of your services by making available to U.S. workers the position which you would fill.
I plan to obtain two recommendation letters from ARS national program center and ARS area office and one additional recommendation letter from my immediate supervisor to address the issue
Proposal reasons are:
i) Due to his Chinese status, ARS is not allowed to release a permanent job offer to the beneficiary according to federal government’s regulation. Therefore, it is impossible for him to obtain permanent residence through labor certification process;
ii) Labor certification process is too lengthy and his renewal H-1B visa will expire by 08/2010. It is impossible for him to obtain permanent residence before his renewal H-1B visa expires;
iii) The researches I am conducting demand all his attention on his projects. The constant attention to his visa status is certainly a distraction to his research and adversely affects our research progress, which benefits our national interest.
iv) The subject of research which I conduct is invasive Species and most research programs on invasive species are held by federal government research agencies, such ARS, APHIS and Forest Service and so on. However, according to President Bush’s administration, all federal government agencies are not allowed directly to provide a permanent job offer to a H-1B holder from China. If the labor certification were required, it means to deprive completely all Federal governmental research agencies of the beneficiary’s permanent service or terribly restrict the employment of the beneficiary. It would be contrary to the national interest of the United States.
Do you think that the reasons are persuasive enough? What else can I do for this issue?
2. You cannot be granted a national interest waiver based on your qualifications if the labor certification process might reveal that an available U.S. worker has those qualifications as well. You cannot be granted a national interest waiver because you play an important role in a given project if such a role could be filled by a competent and available U.S. worker. Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold.
This paragraph seams to talk about the same issue as next paragraph. Do I need to write anything here?
3. Please be advised that merely establishing that you are an alien of exceptional ability or one who will substantially benefit prospectively the United States is not sufficient to warrant this waiver. ("Exceptional ability" is defined as a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.) Regardless of your particular experience or skills, even assuming they are unique, you must establish that the benefit which you will provide to the United States so outweighs the inherent national interest in protecting U.S. workers through the labor certification process that the process should not be required in your case. To do so, you must demonstrate your ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of others in your field by establishing that as of the filing date of your petition you had a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on your field as a whole. Please submit additional evidence which makes this demonstration.
I plan to obtain 10 independent letters from the end users of my technologies from 10 agencies in 5 countries to support the issue.
Of course, the issues can be emphasized in the two recommendation letters from ARS national program center and ARS area office and one additional recommendation letter from my immediate supervisor and in my cover letter
4. For example, your evidence indicates that your research work has been published since the early 1990's and you reported that it has already produced positive and broad results. Regarding your books and articles which had been published as of the filing date of your petition, please submit updated documentation of the total current number of citations of each of those articles by others. You need not submit copies of the citing articles themselves unless one mentions you by name as having made a breakthrough.
i) List the 3 citations for the publication from graduate school.
ii) Report the summaries of two papers and three posters in proceedings.
Do you think that it is helpful to list the print number of my books here?
What else can I do for this issue?
5. Please submit copies of any news releases or similar publications from Dr. Michael Smith's lab, or other official sources, which mentioned you by name prior to the filing date of your petition, or explain if none exist.
I will make photocopies of the article that reported the technologies from my research results in a national magazine and State magazine.
The reports did not mention me by name. But my supervisor introduced my work and emphasized my role during the technology research in his recommendation letter.
What else can I do for this issue?
6. Dr. Smith and you both reported that the value of tree resources at risk due to ALB could be as high as "$23
billion per city." Should this figure be $23 million? If not, please submit documentation of the
source of the $23 billion figure for one city.
This is type error in my supervisor’s recommendation letter and I copied it from his letter to my cover letter .
This figure should be $2.3 billion. I submitted the documentation of the source of this figure, but the CIS officer did not seam to read it.
How to explain this error?
If I only said this is typing error, will the CIS officer doubt that I and my supervisor treat him?
7. You placed the potential economic cost in the U.S. of ALB at $669 billion as did an information card which was issued by Dr. Smith's lab. The source of that figure appears to be a study published in 2001. Your evidence also includes a more recent report from the USDA Forest Service that the eradication of ALB from the U.S. could be completed as early as 2011. Knowing this, why did you, and Dr. Smith in his letter, repeat the dated figure of $669 billion? At this time, is that figure even remotely credible?
In the support document that I submitted with my initial petition, it was described that “The corresponding canopy cover loss that would occur if all preferred host trees were killed ranges from 13-68%. The estimated maximum potential national urban impact of A. glabripennis is a loss of 34.9% of total canopy cover, 30.3% tree mortality (1.2 billion trees) and value loss of $669 billion”
In the another support document from the USDA Forest Service said: “Eradicating ALB will eventually cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take until at least 2011 to complete”.
The CIS officer has two misunderstanding for this issue:
i). The object of my current research is Invasion Biology of Invasive Species: Biocontrol and Related Technologies for Exotic Insect Pests, with Emphasis on Asian Longhorned Beetle(ALB).
Asian Longhorned Beetle(ALB) can be eradicated from the U.S. but Invasive Species cannot be eradicated from the U.S.
ii) “Eradicating ALB will take until at least 2011 to complete” is not equal to “the eradication of ALB from the U.S. could be completed as early as 2011.”
Only if the beetle exists in the U.S., this figure will be credible
I can give lots of recent published documents to prove that this figure is still credible
8. You and Dr. Smith both reported that "currently, the only effective means to eliminate ALB is to remove infested trees and destroy them by chipping or burning" and you cited a Forest Service alert which was last revised in 2002. However, the 2006 information sheet issued by the Forest Service reported that in 2005 over 63,000 trees in New York alone "were treated with insecticides to contain and eradicate ALB." Why did you and Dr. Smith indicate that such treatment was not effective in eliminating ALB?
In my support document, i.e.the 2006 information sheet issued by the Forest Service reported said: “In 2005, 63,006 trees in NY were treated with insecticides to contain and eradicate ALB”
Please note:
1). The report did not say that in 2005, 63,006 trees in New York were alone treated with insecticides.
2). If the trees were treated with insecticides in 2005, it was impossible to declare ALB eradication from the area in 2006.
According to APHIS report, in order to declare an infested area eradicated, it must be free of any signs of ALB for four years.
systemic insecticide imidacloprid and this treatment method were the research results of APHIS. However, APHIS emphasized on its own web site that “the only assured method of eliminating the beetle is to cut and chip or burn infested trees and replace them with nonhost species” and the use of the insecticide imidacloprid only can “decrease beetle populations” but not eradicate ALB because the imidacloprid is dispersed through the tree’s vascular system. However, the majority of the beetle’s life is spent deep within the heartwood of host trees, this enables the insecticide only to reach Asian longhorned beetle adults feeding on small twigs and leaves and the larvae feeding just beneath the bark of host trees( RFE Document 5, 2007 and Document 8,2005). It cannot reach the larvae deep within the heartwood of host trees.
The facts that occurred later further show that ALB has not been eradicated from New York so far and there were still more ALB-infested trees that were found in New York:
For example, WASHINGTON, March 28, 2008 --- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is treating 77,688 trees susceptible to the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) with the insecticide imidacloprid in New York and New Jersey this spring.
9.You emphasized that ARS has declared the threat of ALB to be "the most critical issue for APHIS in the last 20 years" and the tenor of your letter and of Dr. Smith's letter was that the threat remains critical. However, the Forest Service indicates that it has the threat under control and is proceeding towards the total elimination of the threat in the U.S. Please explain this discrepancy.
This is one more misunderstanding for my support document. It is easy to explain
10.The Forest Service reported that "the last infested tree detected in the Illinois project areas was found in 2003" and that "the last infested tree in Hudson County (NJ) was found in 2002." Do both reports remain true?
No, the reports do not remain true any more.
i) WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2006–The removal of 650 trees is taking place on both public streets and private property between Jan. 2 and March 1, weather permitting.
ii) WASHINGTON, March 12, 2007 -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service today announced evidence of Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) infestation in hardwood trees on Prall’s Island, N.Y., an 80-acre, uninhabited island lying between Staten Island, N.Y., and northern New Jersey.”
iii) WASHINGTON, March 28, 2008--The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is treating 77,688 trees susceptible to the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) with the insecticide imidacloprid in New York and New Jersey this spring.
11. You reported that in order to exclude new introduction of the beetle APHIS "will enforce an interim rule" which prevents ALB from entering the U.S. in packing materials, but you wrote that this measure "adversely impacts on U.S. Trade." Your evidence from ARS reports that APHIS has enforced this rule since 1998 (although in September of 2005 it added the requirement of an international marking logo):-Is ARS's report correct that the rule has been enforced since 1998, or is your report correct that as of the date of your letter APHIS was still planning on enforcing the rule in the future? Please explain.
ARS's report is correct that the rule has been enforced since 1998. This is an English grammar error of mine. I copied this sentence from a web site that was published before the rule was enforced in 1998 but I forgot revised the tense
I don’t know what his purpose is when the CIS officer asks this question.
Any idea to address this issue?
Last edited by a moderator: