questions about RFE for EB1(OR)

Y

yyw

Registered Users (C)
Hello,

I have received a RFE for my EB1-OR application, submitted on 9/29/2002 to NSC.

The RFE asked for new evidence that shows the job is permanent. I am a research associate in a university, and all these kinds of jobs rely on continuation of grants. The job offer letter includes words like "the current grant ends on xxxx, but is expected to lead to further funding opportunities as the research proceeds." But INS says that a job offer contigent upon funding that may not be approved is not evidence of permanent job.

I have 16 published papers, 12 of them were co-authored, and for the 9 of the 12 papers, I was the first author. Still, the INS complains "co-authored work by the alien does not show original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field by the alien. Please address this concern and provide more details about the individual research contribution of the alien in each article/publication.

I am wondering if someone who had similar experience would like to offer some advice on how to deal with the above issues.

Thanks a lot.

--yun
 
the INS complains "co-authored work by the alien does not show original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field by the alien.

Yun,
I think research papers should be listed as an evidence of " authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media".

Patents/inventions can be listed under the heading "original scientific, scholarly contribution of major significance in the field"
 
Originally posted by yyw
Hello,

I have received a RFE for my EB1-OR application, submitted on 9/29/2002 to NSC.

The job offer letter includes words like "the current grant ends on xxxx, but is expected to lead to further funding opportunities as the research proceeds." But INS says that a job offer contigent upon funding that may not be approved is not evidence of permanent job.


--yun
Click to expand...

That wording should have never been included in your offer letter for immigration purposes. It sounds like they are afraid of using the word permanent with you in the event that you sue them because they did not give you a job for life. Most professional jobs in the United States are "at will" and are contigent on "continued funding", regardless of sector. It is understood, especially these days, that it is possible that budgets will be cut and people will lose their jobs. It didn't need to be spelled out in your immigration petition.

Brian
 
Ashu62 and Brian

Thank you very much for your help. Warmth fills my heart at reading your responses at the time of stress, frustration, and hopelessness. The case was submitted by the university, which, as I was told, was relatively easy to get approval. I was told that the qualification of my case was definitely in the list of the best category of all the cases submitted and approved before. But now, all 3 cases submitted by the University in the last half year got similar RFEs, and so were those of other universities.

Another issue raised was listing citations and showing the paper extract that cites my work is not enough, it must be critical review of my work. Should I write a document to show how my work has influenced their work by reiterating what has been written in the paper already?

Thanks in advance for all other helpers.

BTW, one of my research theme is actually on the concept of social capital and how it helps bond people together and how to apply the principle in the design of virtual community like this.


--yun
 
Should I write a document to show how my work has influenced their work by reiterating what has been written in the paper already?

Yes, you should do this. It will be still better if somebody else (say your professor or some other senior person) writes this on your behalf.
 
Hello Yun,

I too got my EB1-OR a few years ago (after 1 RFE). But with a response, I think you should be OK.

When I got my RFE, my lawyer suggested me to get more
letters of recommendation. Can you do that? I got letters
of recommendation from new prof.s, and some from the
same prof.s who gave letters the first time.

Make sure you address the issues INS raised in these new
letters of recommendation. You can ask the prof.s to clearly
spell out what aspects of your research represents a
scholarly contribution to the field. Make them state it explicitly (if they are willing). In fact, whatever issues the
INS raised in the RFE, make sure those issues are covered
in the letters.



>Should I write a document to show how my work has influenced >their work by reiterating what has been written in the paper >already?

As someone replied, let your prof. do it, or some other recommender. Also, perhaps your co-autohers would be
willing to write letters stating what their contribution to
the paper was (general) and what your contribution was
(speific and scholarly). That should answer the INS concerns
directly.

hope this helps.

jj-jet

--yun [/B][/QUOTE]
 
Re: Re: questions about RFE for EB1(OR)

Originally posted by leroythelion
... Most professional jobs in the United States are "at will" and are contigent on "continued funding", regardless of sector. It is understood, especially these days, that it is possible that budgets will be cut and people will lose their jobs. It didn't need to be spelled out in your immigration petition.
Click to expand...

Well, we understand that, but INS apparently does not as seen from the RFEs we're getting. Mine says that the offer should include words "permanent" or "tenure-track" which is not something I'm gonna get from my department. Did you in fact come across any evidence that we could use to prove that the same policy applies everywhere? Like a contract, or HR memo - something I could staple to my reply?
 
Re: Re: questions about RFE for EB1(OR)

Originally posted by leroythelion
That wording should have never been included in your offer letter for immigration purposes. It sounds like they are afraid of using the word permanent with you in the event that you sue them because they did not give you a job for life. Most professional jobs in the United States are "at will" and are contigent on "continued funding", regardless of sector. It is understood, especially these days, that it is possible that budgets will be cut and people will lose their jobs. It didn't need to be spelled out in your immigration petition.

Brian
Click to expand...

Recent AAO indicates that "at will" is not equal to permeant
 
offer letter required for I-140?

I filed I-140 EB1-OR to NSC this August. An offer letter is NOT required document for filing I-140, but it's required for I-485. So, I didn't attach my offer letter until I filed I-485 this Oct. In form I-140 I checked the box as "permanent" for the position type. Is that enough?

I am waiting for I-140. Will I get a RFE asking for offer letter that shows the job is permanent?
 
Re: offer letter required for I-140?

Originally posted by mimihu
I filed I-140 EB1-OR to NSC this August. An offer letter is NOT required document for filing I-140, but it's required for I-485. So, I didn't attach my offer letter until I filed I-485 this Oct. In form I-140 I checked the box as "permanent" for the position type. Is that enough?

I am waiting for I-140. Will I get a RFE asking for offer letter that shows the job is permanent?
Click to expand...


I think it does need an offer letter stating permanent
 
I have applied under the EB1-1 and EB2-NIW category. My attorney adviced not to use the employment offer letter for the 140 application (even though my leter stated that "Dr. XXX is an employee in excellent standing and his annula salary is $...") as it is not needed for that. Instead I hit home the point that it is a permanent job etc through a reference letter from my boss. Also it will be a god idea to get other people to write to the effect that "...this field requires the continued presence and contribution from Dr. So & So for many years to come" bla bla bla.
 
I can not understand. I thought that your EB1-OR petition was approved back in June 2003 judging by your previous posting, which I copied below. At that time, you earlier postings were discussed at length by people trying to provide constructive suggestions on some of the issues that you are raising again here.

Topew


EB1 OR approved
Hello all,

My EB1 OR petition was approved by NSC. I want to thank
all of you in this forum, especially those who replied to my
questions on my RFE.

ND 9/30/2002
RFE 3/17/2003
RFE recvd 6/4/2003
AD 6/9/2003

I was pleasantly surprised that my petition was approved
in basically 3 business days after the RFE was received, given
the fact that the RFE raised questions in all the six categories
in addition to 3 year experience.

For your reference, my qualification is as follows:
(1) Ph.D, petitioned when a bit more than one year after Ph.D.
(2) More than 20 publications in peer-reviewed journals and international conferences
(3) More than 10 citations by researchers all over the world
(4) An NSF grant
(5) Reviewed for about 10 conferences and 2 journals
(6) Recommendation letters.

RFE raised the question that recommendation letters from
close colleagues (co-authors) are not convincing. So I got
more letters from others.

REF also asked for individual contributions in each co-authored
paper, despite I am the first author of most papers. Asked
co-authors to write letters to identify my individual contributions.

A list of citaion was not enough. Compiled a letter by extracting
the parts of papers that cited my work.

Was asked how reviewers were selected. Asked several editors
and conference organizers to give an acount of the process.

Was asked how papers were selected for conferences. Created
a list to explain for each conference, citing the numbers of
acceptance for each conference in the acceptance notification,
with the notification attached.

Was asked about the NSF grant. Send exerpts of NSF proposal
guidance to show the awarding of grants takes into consideration
previous research and the qualification of awardee. Also sent
panel review results in which qualification was specifically
addressed, and the competitiveness of the grant was mentioned.

Hope this helps those who are still fighting.

--yun
 
topew

yyw's post about the RFE was posted on 24th March 2003. The post you searched was later. Please pay attention to the date.
 
Noted, but why are these issues then re-surfacing with regard to the same peitioner? Please see the postings of Mike-li, Mimihu, and bostondoctor of 5th and 6th December.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top