RFE for EB1-a – will need help !

Y

Yssac

Registered Users (C)
On May 10, 2004, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence or information in this case. The notice explains in detail what additional material is needed.

MY DATA

RD August 19, 2003
ND August 19, 2003
CP Processing
RFE May 10, 2004

Ph.D. from European university – Post-doc experience in top 10 European university and in top 50 US university
7 letters of recommendations
Claimed 6 categories

Authorship: 31 papers: 1 self-authored; 30 co-authored, with 12 as 1st author; 1 patent (granted internationally); 1 patent application. 92 citations.

Judge: reviewer for 4 journals;

Orginal contribution to the field: Based on my own arguments about contributions in the field. Internationally granted patent leading to project funded by European Commission. Supported by letters of recommendations.

Salary: Claimed higher salary than average salary in my area. Do not expect to meet the requirements.

Membership: ordinary membership of professional society. Do not expect to meet the requirements.

Award: Marquis Who’s Who in the World biographee; best poster award from an European Consortium.

Prepared case by myself drawing from inputs in this forum. Did not consult an attorney. May need your help and support to answer RFE !!!

Thanks
 
Authorship: 31 papers: 1 self-authored; 30 co-authored, with 12 as 1st author; 1 patent (granted internationally); 1 patent application. 92 citations.

good number of papers plus the good citation.you should meet this one.

Judge: reviewer for 4 journals;

how many times, they may ask you if you do it frequently. or critieria to be selected as a reviwer.

Orginal contribution to the field: Based on my own arguments about contributions in the field. Internationally granted patent leading to project funded by European Commission. Supported by letters of recommendations.

i think you are ok with this one

Salary: Claimed higher salary than average salary in my area. Do not expect to meet the requirements.

disputable

Membership: ordinary membership of professional society. Do not expect to meet the requirements.

disputable

Award: Marquis Who’s Who in the World biographee; best poster award from an European Consortium.

the first one has no meaning, you may argue the second one.

Prepared case by myself drawing from inputs in this forum. Did not consult an attorney. May need your help and support to answer RFE !!!

Thanks[/QUOTE]

let wait to see the detail of your rfe, and we can help you out. i think your case is strong, you should focus on the first three requirments and argue the poster award. please share your detail.
 
Reply to xiongch2002

Judge: reviewer for 4 journals;

how many times, they may ask you if you do it frequently. or critieria to be selected as a reviwer.

I did it 10 times at the time of submission. Got 2 more papers to review in the meantime. I believe that being recognized as an expert in the field is the main criteria to be selected as a reviewer. Can ask the editor for support.

Reply to topew

Authorship: This is your strongest suit.

Judge: Were you specifically requested to do the review or they were passed down to you?

I was specifically requested to do the reviews.

Scholarship: You may need more letters of recommendations.

Probably, let's see...

Leadership: Did you claim this?

No, but I was recently promoted manager by my company. Based on my understanding I can't argue with it, just because it happened after I-140 submission.

Media: Are there any media publications about you?

There is one article aknowledging the "best poster award". But it is not specifically about me.
There are reports and publications from major organization and agencies citing my work. I used that to illustrate my orginal contribution to the field.

Thanks
 
RFE Details

I received the RFE today. It looks really bad, worse than I thought it could be. None of the criteria were met. Here is a brief summary:

Award: petitioner was not the 1st author of the winning poster. More important, no evidence that this was a plenary session of a national or international conference (presented to have been a local workshop).

Judge: Journals as hundred of reviewers to review manuscript for them. Occasional participation in the peer review process does not substantiate the petioner has earned such national or international acclaim that his oppinions and insights are regularly sought as valued element of that process. Petitioner has not served on the editorial board of any journal, chaired and organized professional conferences....

Scholarship: letters fails to establish national or international notoriety in the field (i.e. colleagues have high opinion of the petitioner and his work, as do other researchers who know the petitioner). Petioner's findings do not appear to have yet had a measurable infuence in the larger field. There is a lack of documentation supporting many of the claims in the letters. Petitioner's work may provide novel findings, the fact that the petitioner was among the first to make such discoveries carries little weight (???). More important, the petitioner must not only show that his discoveries are important to his own research institutions, but throughout his field.

Authorship: Publication alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is important or influential if there is little evidence that other researchers have relied upon the petitioner's conclusions.... (refering to citations) there is no evidence of the range of years these citations were over...While the petitioner's research clearly has practical applications, it can be argued that any article, in order to be accepted in a scientific journal for publication, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge... the petitioner must demonstrate that his articles have garnered national or international attention throughout the scientific research community. (regarding patent) The petioner has registered patents. Patents are form of legal protection. Anyone can apply for a patent. This is not evidence one has reached the top of his field, or has sustained national or international acclaim.

This is tough. I wonder if I should reply to RFE or start all over again. Please give me your thoughts and recommendations.
 
Yssac said:
This is tough. I wonder if I should reply to RFE or start all over again. Please give me your thoughts and recommendations.
Click to expand...

I recommend you see a lawyer. The RFE is full of "no evidence" or "little evidence", etc. It seems to me that your petition did not meet the *legal* requirements.

Brian
 
Lawyer in Chicago area

Can you please recommend a good layer in Chicago area ?

I don't think that I can overcome the RFE myself.

Thanks for your inputs
 
Why the lawyer has to be in chicago? what is difference?

I think you can do it. Even if you are going to hire a lawyer, you still need to collect the primary supporting material (unsolicited materials ).

I still think your case is strong. You are unlucky in NSC, which is "extraoridinarily" picky in EB-1,2. If you were in TSC, you would pass without RFE

Your qualification of authorship and judge is indisputable, but please note the AAO langauge : "The petitioner cannot establish eligibility simply by submitting evidence relating to three criteria. The evidence must be evaluated as to whether it is indicative of national or international acclaim." please focus on the sustained national or international acclaim, which can be supported by letter from editor of journals and the detail explanation of the article citing your paper.
 
My lawyer is in Detroit, MI. I guess, this is also Nebraska area. She helped me to respond to RFE. Let me know if you are interested.

Most important thing in responding to RFE is a well worded cover letter. It should be written by a lawyer.
 
Lawyer

alexk said:
My lawyer is in Detroit, MI. I guess, this is also Nebraska area. She helped me to respond to RFE. Let me know if you are interested.

Most important thing in responding to RFE is a well worded cover letter. It should be written by a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Alexk, can you please let me know the name of the Laywer in Detroit?
Thank you.

jljs123a
 
jljs123a,

I prepared original EB1-A I-140 petition on my own. After getting RFE I became very nervous and asked my company to help me with response. I did not plan to do it, because I wanted to feel more independent in my possible new job search. But after all, it worked out very well and by now I have my passport already stamped.


Please, let me know if this is any good for your case. Here is what my lawyer wrote me:

Our immigration practice is a business immigration practice in that we represent strictly corporate clients who sponsor (or support the sponsorship as in your case) foreign nationals for nonimmigrant and immigrant status. As a general rule, we do not represent individuals in immigration matters. If the individual you are aware of is being sponsored by an employer or the employer is willing to step in now as a sponsor and be our client, please ask the individual to have the employer contact me directly.
 
Yssac, Can you tell us the officer's No.in your RFE? It is depends on who reviews your case.
Zcehn
 
Can you tell us the officer's No.in your RFE

This is NSC/CYW192/paa806

Is it allowed to disclose names in this forum ?
If positive I can disclose his/her name as well.

It is depends on who reviews your case

Can you please explain why ?


I think that I will withdraw my application and work on a new one later. I don't have time and the courage to answer the RFE right now. There is no positive point in it. At least it will help me building up a stronger application next time.

Thanks for your help !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top