recommendation letter for EA

J

Joo77

Registered Users (C)
I am collecting the letters for a new EA case. I found a top prof in the field, who have everything (except Nobel prize). I sent him a draft letter and he modified it and sent back to me. The letter is not as strong as in my first draft. I know in EA, letter should say things like "Dr. xx is in the top 1% of all scientists in the field". Sure the percentage depends on how you define the size of the field. But, it is impossible to force the writers to share the same view about the field as we like to define. Also, be honest, if I am really in top 1% of a relative large-size field, I should have already been a professor in top institutes.
So I do not think I can push him to write as in the way I like. So should I include his letter in my case? I really like to have his letter because his reputation. Please share your experience/suggestion. Thanks.
 
Joo77 said:
I am collecting the letters for a new EA case. I found a top prof in the field, who have everything (except Nobel prize). I sent him a draft letter and he modified it and sent back to me. The letter is not as strong as in my first draft. I know in EA, letter should say things like "Dr. xx is in the top 1% of all scientists in the field". Sure the percentage depends on how you define the size of the field. But, it is impossible to force the writers to share the same view about the field as we like to define. Also, be honest, if I am really in top 1% of a relative large-size field, I should have already been a professor in top institutes.
So I do not think I can push him to write as in the way I like. So should I include his letter in my case? I really like to have his letter because his reputation. Please share your experience/suggestion. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You are right and there is probably nothing you can do about it. But it might help if you ask him to reformat the same sentence differently. For example, I have 4 recos whose line goes something like this: " Of all the researchers and scientists I have interacted over many years in my professional career, Dr. XXX ranks among the top 1%"

Now this takes a different tone than the one you gave. But if the guy writes his qualifications in the first para of your letter before he starts talking about you, then the line that I wrote implies that you are extremely good.
 
Joo77 said:
I am collecting the letters for a new EA case. I found a top prof in the field, who have everything (except Nobel prize). I sent him a draft letter and he modified it and sent back to me. The letter is not as strong as in my first draft. I know in EA, letter should say things like "Dr. xx is in the top 1% of all scientists in the field". Sure the percentage depends on how you define the size of the field. But, it is impossible to force the writers to share the same view about the field as we like to define. Also, be honest, if I am really in top 1% of a relative large-size field, I should have already been a professor in top institutes.
So I do not think I can push him to write as in the way I like. So should I include his letter in my case? I really like to have his letter because his reputation. Please share your experience/suggestion. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily being put 1% among others. In my case, no ref letterers mention that percent. Instead, the whole content accounts.
 
I don't think top 1% is required for EA, top 5% should be good enough for the petition. I will never ask anyone write a letter for me saying I am the top 1%. Remember that fact that reference letters are just one thing and this reference letter is just one of the many reference letters for your petition, and you have to show other stuffs that the adjuster can make his own judgement. If I were you I would include his reference letter if he did not say any negative things on you in his letter.
 
mike_li said:
Not necessarily being put 1% among others. In my case, no ref letterers mention that percent. Instead, the whole content accounts.
Click to expand...
I agree. I didn't have any percentages or "ranking" in any of my letters either.
 
reference letter

Hi all,
I am wondering who is eligible to write a reference letter and what a reference letter should have on it about the person and his/her study and experience? Which kind of sentences should be written?
Thanks
stanri
 
Letter

As far as I am concerned drafting our own reference letter is the "most awkward situation"

I wrote what I thought I deserved.

I appreciate your point that if you're in the top 1% you would've landed a tenure fac. May be even in the ivy leagues............

When I think of the criteria it makes me laugh - but then many get through - surprise ! surprise !
 
Recommendation Letters

By statue, there are no criteria that state categorically that you must have recommendation letters, talk less of letters stating that you are in the top 1% in the field. Documentary evidences in existence prior to your petition carry far more weight than letters solicited for the purpose of the petition. Indeed, AAO have rejected several EA and NIW cases with strong reco. letters, but little documentary evidences to back up the claims in those letters.

If your documentary evidences are strong enough, your reco. letters should not hurt your petition. However, focus more on drafting good petition letter that summarizes your accomplishments and make references to your existing documentary evidences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
letters by some one who is in other field

Can some one (PI) who is working in a govt. job like NIH but in totally different field write a letter for you?

In general when people write letters they will say I have known Dr.ABC's work or I have seen his papers and he is best in the field.

In this case, an investigator working at NIH can't say I am giving him a recommendation letter because I know his/her boss. But how can one justify that Dr. ABC is good or his work is important so NIW or EB-EA should be granted when both are in totally different field.

Lets investigator is cardiologist and applicant is working in neurology research.
 
One of EB1-A requirements is: beneficiary must be shown to be an individual who is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.

I believe that it is foolish to mention any specific percentage in a recommendation letter. Specifically, if it will be 5% - that sounds not right.

If a big guy writes you a letter where most or all of the "magic" words are thrown away (extraordinary, top of the field, best to my knowledge ..) do not use the letter at all. Sometimes it is possible to negotiate right wording and add few words, but some people, especially those who know you only by your publications refuse.

If you put a "weak" letter in your package it is possible that they may use not very strong phrases out of it and conclude that your referees are of high regard of your work, but you are not at the very top of the field.
 
Read AAO Decisions

Please go to CIS webpage and read a few AAO decisions about EA cases, especially those got overturned. They are great help for you to understand what EA requires. I think CIS cares more about whether you have made any original contribution in your field, not what percentage you are in.

Please have a look at the law about EA's requirements again. It is not mentioned in the ten criteria for EA that a candidate has to be classified into certain percentage of your field. In order to make your case indismissable, you need to address at least three of the ten criteria, and address them one-by-one, or word-by-word. For example, in (v) you need to ask your ref to write about your original contributions in your field, how you made the contribution and why it is original, with reasonable technical details, of course. It does not help if they just mention you have made original contributtion. These are clearly demonstrated in many AAO decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alien_Simba said:
Please go to CIS webpage and read a few AAO decisions about EA cases, especially those got overturned. They are great help for you to understand what EA requires. I think CIS cares more about whether you have made any original contribution in your field, not what percentage you are in.

Please have a look at the law about EA's requirements again. It is not mentioned in the ten criteria for EA that a candidate has to be classified into certain percentage of your field. In order to make your case indismissable, you need to address at least three of the ten criteria, and address them one-by-one, or word-by-word. For example, in (v) you need to ask your ref to write about your original contributions in your field, how you made the contribution and why it is original, with reasonable technical details, of course. It does not help if they just mention you have made original contributtion. These are clearly demonstrated in many AAO decisions.
Click to expand...

It does not mention the percentage in the ten criteria, but in its introduction of EA, it says:
You must be one of "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," to be granted this classification.

So EA does need you to be ranked against your peers, who also make original contributions as yourself.
 
Joo77 said:
I am collecting the letters for a new EA case. I found a top prof in the field, who have everything (except Nobel prize). I sent him a draft letter and he modified it and sent back to me. The letter is not as strong as in my first draft. I know in EA, letter should say things like "Dr. xx is in the top 1% of all scientists in the field". Sure the percentage depends on how you define the size of the field. But, it is impossible to force the writers to share the same view about the field as we like to define. Also, be honest, if I am really in top 1% of a relative large-size field, I should have already been a professor in top institutes.
So I do not think I can push him to write as in the way I like. So should I include his letter in my case? I really like to have his letter because his reputation. Please share your experience/suggestion. Thanks.
Click to expand...
can you please post your letter in this forum? Everybody will be thankful to you.
 
Yes, you are right. The "small percentage" is mentioned in the introduction of the EA requirements. But it is not for a candidate to single minded to prove, it is for EA reviever to make conclusion based upon whether a candidate satisfies at least three of the 10 criteria. If a candidate proves, he/she satisfies three of them, the reviewer will arrive to this conclusion, yes, he/she is among the small of percentage of ... As I remember, in many AAO decisions about EA cases I read, I did not see any paragraph specifically discussed about whether a candidate proved himself to be in the top percentage. They are always about the 10 criteria. Especially in those cases that director's decisions were overturned, in the end of the decision adjudicator always concludes that yes, the candidate has proved that he satisfies criteria such and such, and he is a small percentage of ... or he has extraordinary ability in..., therefore the director's decision is overturned. AAO adjudicators understand the immigration law best. You really should study their writings thoroughly..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top