Processing time for EB1-EA RFE (NSC w/o PP)

W

waitabit

Registered Users (C)
Hi All,
I recently filed the response to an RFE issued for my EB1- EA (Briefly, PhD Genetics, 30+ papers with 25 first authored, 70+ cites, reviewer for intl. grants and 13 journals- letters submitted, support from 15 independent experts, 2 young investigator awards from intl societies + smaller travel awards, nominated member of phi-kappa-phi; used lawyer). Drawing from the wealth of expertise here, I would like to ask for feedback on response time for RFEs (without PP) - I submitted 07/24 (receipt notice) but have heard nothing since - what's the usual time frame for these? And is there any correlation between approvals (taking less time) and denials (taking longer)? Thanks!
 
who knows

Who knows. It may take one or two weeks or even months.
I am at TSC I am waiting for nearly 4 months after submitting response. Only time will tell.
 
Dear Waitabit,
Your credentials looks very strong. It is unfortunate to receive RFE.
Generally, it shud not take more than 8 weeks to get decision from uscis after submission. But we never know in the present situation. BTW, can you please post comments from USCIS. so it may be useful for others.
 
for some it was fast

Some people got it within 8 weeks. That is what is mentioned in the USCIS message you should expect to receive a decision or an update within 60 days.
How do you count 1 to 60. 1 and 60 or 1 10 20 50 60, or 1,2,3, ....60 or 1, 1.2, 1.4, ............. 60. You never know how USCIS counts days in your case. I tried calling several time. You get several answers like peding security check, being reviewed, with the adjudicating officer. Well, my frustration is understandable. But I sincerely wish other people get decisions quickly be it positive or negative.
 
RFE content

Thanks moden and goviks! Sorry I neglected to describe my RFE - the service challenged all points as follows:
(i) awards: service acknowledges awards -- please provide rules and scope of participation -- also complained that these are "student awards"
- Response: We reiterated that rules had been provided, noted number of applicants for each award (substantiated with letters from the society), had experts testify that these are not "student" honors

(ii) membership: service acknowledges membership BUT show membership is exclusive.
- Response: As before, we sent info from membership websites to show that some societies (phi-kappa-phi) are by Dean's nomination, and others have a credentials committee that approves new members

(iii) Judge of work: service acknowledges BUT peer review is routine! Show that you review exceptionally large volumes of papers/grants
-Response: letters from editors of journals stating this

(iv) Scholarly contributions: Service states that with less than 50 cites, I don't qualify. Also mere cites not sufficiently representative of acclaim
- Response: Corrected service that I had 70+ cites and, again, discussed how several scientists claim our work influenced them - also letters

(v) Publications: Prove that these papers are important
- Response: letters from experts

(vi) Exhibition: What was scope of each conf, how much media publicity etc.
- Response: These are intl meetings, lots of attendees - also restates that govt agencies report using our work for policy-making.

(vii) Critical role: Service requests $'s in federal funding.
- Response: Letter from employer stating this.

That's it - they also identified two expert letter-writers as examples of EB1 candidates - one individual is the ex-Director of public health affairs!! I found this incredibly silly, but this individual was completely willing to write a letter of rebuttal to the service stating why my contributions match hers, so we added that as well.

Coincidentally, someone else had posted their RFE on these boards - I found it amusing that our RFEs were identical!

Just lots of paper - lots of favors - and now, lots of anxious waiting!

Advice, as always, is very welcome!
 
Waitabit,
Thanks for posting your comments. These will greatly help others.
I am sad to look at comments. They are raising almost all the points. Looks like they are very rigeorous in reviewing. However, most of them doesnot make sense. I feel your referees did not mention about the significance of your publications in the letter.
Good luck and post your progress.
 
Thanks for your wishes, goviks! Actually, the referees put extra effort into saying things like "most influential paper' - the "first ever" - "preeminent expert" and other such gratuitous compliments! Alas, I fear the reviewer was either too rigorous or did not bother with the application!
 
Hi!

We definitely the same pattern again and again...

(i) awards: service acknowledges awards -- please provide rules and scope of participation -- also complained that these are "student awards"
- Response: We reiterated that rules had been provided, noted number of applicants for each award (substantiated with letters from the society), had experts testify that these are not "student" honors

Well, it is clear that they don't like those student awards.. see other threads where it was already commented. They claim that those "student awards" are promises of great achievements, while they want achievements.

(ii) membership: service acknowledges membership BUT show membership is exclusive.
- Response: As before, we sent info from membership websites to show that some societies (phi-kappa-phi) are by Dean's nomination, and others have a credentials committee that approves new members

I'm afraid Dean's nomination is not really enough. They have in mind something like the NSA or Fellow (distinguished Memeber) of a national professional society.


(iii) Judge of work: service acknowledges BUT peer review is routine! Show that you review exceptionally large volumes of papers/grants
-Response: letters from editors of journals stating this


The write in all their documents (appeals included) that indeed reviewing others' work is normal for a researcher.


(iv) Scholarly contributions: Service states that with less than 50 cites, I don't qualify. Also mere cites not sufficiently representative of acclaim
- Response: Corrected service that I had 70+ cites and, again, discussed how several scientists claim our work influenced them - also letters


Good that you have more citations to show. It is nice to emphasize those two or three most cited papers you have. Note that you have an average of 2 citations per paper... not much!


(v) Publications: Prove that these papers are important
- Response: letters from experts

The problem is the low average number of citations per paper. If the papers are that important, why is it that they are poorly cited? Again, if you have a couple with twenty citations or more, that looks much better!


(vi) Exhibition: What was scope of each conf, how much media publicity etc.
- Response: These are intl meetings, lots of attendees - also restates that govt agencies report using our work for policy-making.

Those exhibitions are not places where you put a poster up. This criterion is for artists, and they explain that well too. It should not have been claimed... It is only upsetting the reader.


(vii) Critical role: Service requests $'s in federal funding.
- Response: Letter from employer stating this.


On that on, I don't know how you evidenced it and which leading or critical role you really played. It is a tough one...

You worke with a lawyer? Just curious...

Chris
 
Hi Mine Got approved in 1 week non PP, it was somewhat like yours, the RFE I have posted it in the forum, ashEB1.
My lawyer replied to the RFE, also you can ask the people who they have referred to to write you letters stating why its would not be appropriate to compare with them even though its an honor that USCIS thought they were reputed.
Good luck
 
Thanks for your detailed review, ChrisV - one hopes the service will do the same :) Your point regarding cites is well made - the importance of cites was substantiated by the fact the several cites were actually commentaries on my work, not a passing mention. Regarding exhibitions - correct, and we did not claim the "exhibition in commercial arts" - just that had attended many meetings and such. As for the memberships, interestingly, service states that what they wanted was evidence of the "quality" of the society not of my status in the society. I did work with a lawyer, and they did a great job - I say that out of no prejudice whatsoever, only because I want to reiterate that I'm providing here a precise of the response not the pages of detailed research that was submitted. Fingers crossed and everything! Thanks for your feedback :)
 
Hi Waitabit,
If we are unlucky, these things happen. They might have reviewed it on monday whe they are in bad mood.
As Chris suggested, you can`t claim coneference proceedings as a separate criteria. It comes under original contribution. Is your attorney new?
Any way, Good luck. Hope the best.
 
Thanks, sjsd (and congratulations!) & goviks! BTW, as both goviks and ChrisV have accurately pointed out, we did not claim conf. proceedings as unique from original publications - indeed, the service classified this under a separate bullet point and asked for citations. Vagaries of the adjudicator, I presume :)
 
sjsd said:
Hi Mine Got approved in 1 week non PP, it was somewhat like yours, the RFE I have posted it in the forum, ashEB1.
My lawyer replied to the RFE, also you can ask the people who they have referred to to write you letters stating why its would not be appropriate to compare with them even though its an honor that USCIS thought they were reputed.
Good luck
Click to expand...

That is great advice, sjsd! We did precisely that - in fact, the expert described in detail how our career paths are different.
 
Approved!

Hi - indeed, I received a CRIS email stating that the approval notice was mailed yesterday:)
 
Thanks, goviks! I filed Aug 06, and concurrently filed 485. Here's to the waiting game, part deux!
 
Moden,
Did you get decision fron USCIS? If we are lcuky, it is 1,2,3 but unlucky it is 1.10, 1.11, 1.12....
Let`s wait.
 
Moden,
It is already 4 months since u replied RFE, I feel you better call them and find out. Good luck on your petition and wish to hear good news soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top