RFE, Gurus pls help

P

pururwa

Registered Users (C)
I received an RFE email from CIS, haven't got the actual notice yet so don't know what its all about. Sorry for panicking this early but I have serious doubts about my attorneys handling this case well, thats why want some good advice from you guys in advance.

My worries are:
1.) The labor required BS+5 or MS+3. I have worked full time only for 1.5 years after my MS and before joining the current employer. However I worked at my university and at another company part time total for about 4 years (I guess it will be equal to 2 yrs full time), so that gives me 3.5 yrs; But the part time exp was before I completed my Masters. Do you think that would be a problem ? Does the exp have to be after completing masters?
(FYI, The labor was filed under PERM for me as a beneficiary, got approved in Feb 06.)

2.) Also, I was unemployed for two months back in 2001, but I was on proper H1 status and my H1 got transferred easily to the new company without any RFEs at that time, could that cause any issues?

3.) The exp letter provided by one of my previous employers (a very big company in the US) didn't list my job duties. Their HR said they didn't provide job details on the exp letter, thats their usual practice. So, my attorneys suggested that I would get a letter from one of my former colleagues/mentors from that company. I got that letter from my previous colleague on plain paper and submitted it along with the company letter. Do you see any problems there ?

I would really appreciate any help from you guys.
Thanks
 
Your problem is that you dont have 3 years of post-graduate experience. I don't understand why MS+3 was indicated at the PERM stage, when you could have easily put MS+1 or even MS+0.
 
This is not true. MS+Xx years could be before MS, but it has to be after BS. Otherwise in his case, where there is also a BS+5+3 requirement, no one who has BS+5+3 could have applied, because they did not have MS. Besides CIS clarifies (I read that somewhere, but now I can't find exactly where it was written) that in order to consider experiecen only after MS the PERM has to state that, i.e. it has to state that 3 years are progressive post MAsters otherwise anybody with MS can apply if they have experience before MS.

Let's see, even if we say that MS+3 is only for experience gained after MS, this could be argued very easy. Dept of Labor does not want you to put any restrictive requirements (so that you can draw more applicants for the position), right? So here it is: if you say that the 3 yrs experience are to be only after MS you are too restrictive without business necessity proven, and thus you are making it more difficult for US applicants to apply for this position. That to say, no matter that PERM does not say anything, it is plain clear that Dept of Labor would not allow the experience to be only AFTER MS because it will be too restrictive to US applicants. That's how you justify it in case CIS ask you.

I would appreciate if you let me know what exactly the RFE was for.
 
Thank you very much both of you

braniand said:
This is not true. MS+Xx years could be before MS, but it has to be after BS. Otherwise in his case, where there is also a BS+5+3 requirement, no one who has BS+5+3 could have applied, because they did not have MS. Besides CIS clarifies (I read that somewhere, but now I can't find exactly where it was written) that in order to consider experiecen only after MS the PERM has to state that, i.e. it has to state that 3 years are progressive post MAsters otherwise anybody with MS can apply if they have experience before MS.

Let's see, even if we say that MS+3 is only for experience gained after MS, this could be argued very easy. Dept of Labor does not want you to put any restrictive requirements (so that you can draw more applicants for the position), right? So here it is: if you say that the 3 yrs experience are to be only after MS you are too restrictive without business necessity proven, and thus you are making it more difficult for US applicants to apply for this position. That to say, no matter that PERM does not say anything, it is plain clear that Dept of Labor would not allow the experience to be only AFTER MS because it will be too restrictive to US applicants. That's how you justify it in case CIS ask you.

I would appreciate if you let me know what exactly the RFE was for.
Click to expand...

I haven't yet received the RFE; I will post it as soon as I hear from my lawyers.
 
To my knowledge, INS does not consider 4 years part time employment to be equivalent to 2 years full time employment.

I think your major problem is going to be proving that you have the required 3 years of experience. I am also as puzzled as Arthur2K as to why you put MS+3 in your PERM filing when you clearly didn't have that much experience.

I agree with braniand regarding when you could have accumulated the 3 years of experience. Unless your PERM application says 3 years of post-MS experience, any full time experience in a closely related field after BS would count.
 
Please let me know

chravi said:
To my knowledge, INS does not consider 4 years part time employment to be equivalent to 2 years full time employment.

I think your major problem is going to be proving that you have the required 3 years of experience. I am also as puzzled as Arthur2K as to why you put MS+3 in your PERM filing when you clearly didn't have that much experience.

I agree with braniand regarding when you could have accumulated the 3 years of experience. Unless your PERM application says 3 years of post-MS experience, any full time experience in a closely related field after BS would count.
Click to expand...


Hey chravi,
Thanks for your msg. Could you please let me know what your source was to get the information on part time experience, I would like to get some reading done before I talk to the lawyers.

When we filed for labor my lawyers carefully reviewed my experience and they suggested to go with MS+3, they were so confident about my part time exp. However, I told them to just go with MS+1 but they said it would attract more candidates for the interviews and assured me that I did have the required exp based on my part time work. Now, I can't say if they screwed me up. BTW, I haven't yet seen the RFE, I will post the details when I get that.

Please send me some links if you have to get some info about part time exp.
 
RFE received finally

I finally received the RFE from the lawyers. The are asking for the below:
1.) Ability to Pay
2.) Show my university experience as related exp.

At the univ, I did work on some of the tools/skills which are listed on the labor but not on all the tools/skills listed on the labor. How do I show that exp was related, anyspecific format I have to follow.

Please help.
 
So to clarify, they have accepted your part-time experience from the company before your MS, right? And they have also accepted the university experience before MS, right? They are only asking how it relates to your present occupation? That is good news. What kind of reference did you provide for the university experience? Maybe it is not enough or not well written. Please specify.

Also, could you please share the details for the ability to pay RFE?
 
braniand said:
So to clarify, they have accepted your part-time experience from the company before your MS, right? And they have also accepted the university experience before MS, right? They are only asking how it relates to your present occupation? That is good news. What kind of reference did you provide for the university experience? Maybe it is not enough or not well written. Please specify.

Also, could you please share the details for the ability to pay RFE?
Click to expand...
Whatever you have asked is correct. Now I haveto show how my univ exp. relates to the labor requirements. I have provided an exp. letter from the univ which stated my job duties and tools I worked on. I guess now I have to explain how those job duties/tools are related to labor reuirements. Any idea how I should approach this ? Shall I reuest a new letter from the univ ?

I haven't seen the RFE yet, only got these points from lawyer's mail. I will post more details about A2P as soon as I get the RFE.

Thanks
 
finally I have received the RFE.

Finally I received the RFE. They have requested:
1.) A2P: company's annual report, 2004 or 2005 tax returns, and my 2005 W-2.
2A.) Univ Exp: They have said that the "Teaching Assistant" job did not have the same job duties as listed on the labor. However that exp was for only 9 months part time.
2B.) For the other part time univ research assistantship, they have said that it wasn't stated on the exp letter if it was part time/ full time. Now, since they haven't raised questions about job duties on this one, would it be sufficient to get a letter from the univ stating that it was a part time employment. To my surprise, even if CIS assumed it to be part time, I was meeting the 3 yr exp requirement (since I worked full time at another job for about 20 months + this part time 3 yrs gave me 18 months of full time exp), then why did they even ask to clarify if it was part time /full time.

any suggestions?
 
pururwa said:
Finally I received the RFE. They have requested:
1.) A2P: company's annual report, 2004 or 2005 tax returns, and my 2005 W-2.
2A.) Univ Exp: They have said that the "Teaching Assistant" job did not have the same job duties as listed on the labor. However that exp was for only 9 months part time.
2B.) For the other part time univ research assistantship, they have said that it wasn't stated on the exp letter if it was part time/ full time. Now, since they haven't raised questions about job duties on this one, would it be sufficient to get a letter from the univ stating that it was a part time employment. To my surprise, even if CIS assumed it to be part time, I was meeting the 3 yr exp requirement (since I worked full time at another job for about 20 months + this part time 3 yrs gave me 18 months of full time exp), then why did they even ask to clarify if it was part time /full time.

any suggestions?
Click to expand...

(1) A2P: Didn't you provide any of this fin. info, it is a requirement. How come it wasn't submitted originally?
(2A) Can you make enough yrs of experience without this university experience? And also is it really so much different than the job? Can't you argue it back?
(2B)This is the easiest. Simply prepare new ref. letter stating if job was full-time or part-time. Well, it will be much better if they say it is full-time. But write a whole letter, not just submitting this part. Include all previous information, and add the full time part time sentence. Be extremely careful not to change the main part of the letter.
 
Thanks Braniand!

braniand said:
(1) A2P: Didn't you provide any of this fin. info, it is a requirement. How come it wasn't submitted originally?
(2A) Can you make enough yrs of experience without this university experience? And also is it really so much different than the job? Can't you argue it back?
(2B)This is the easiest. Simply prepare new ref. letter stating if job was full-time or part-time. Well, it will be much better if they say it is full-time. But write a whole letter, not just submitting this part. Include all previous information, and add the full time part time sentence. Be extremely careful not to change the main part of the letter.
Click to expand...
thanks for your reply:
1.) A2P: my company did submit some financial reports; but it seems it wasn't enough, hence they asked for more.
2A.) Yeah I can show enough exp. without this but I will try to get the course information that I helped teaching while at this job. That course had some common areas with my current job duties.
2B.) This is part time emp. I will get a letter stating that. So, you are saying that I shouldn't change any of the wordings of the letter. right? Although I can ask them to mention some more related job duties, but I shouldn't do that. right? CIS never argued about or rejected the part time emp., so I guess it should be ok if I get a letter stating part time. what do you think?
Also, showing it part time will still complete my exp requirements.
Please comment.
Thanks
 
pururwa said:
thanks for your reply:
1.) A2P: my company did submit some financial reports; but it seems it wasn't enough, hence they asked for more.
2A.) Yeah I can show enough exp. without this but I will try to get the course information that I helped teaching while at this job. That course had some common areas with my current job duties.
2B.) This is part time emp. I will get a letter stating that. So, you are saying that I shouldn't change any of the wordings of the letter. right? Although I can ask them to mention some more related job duties, but I shouldn't do that. right? CIS never argued about or rejected the part time emp., so I guess it should be ok if I get a letter stating part time. what do you think?
Also, showing it part time will still complete my exp requirements.
Please comment.
Thanks
Click to expand...
2B) Yes, I said do not change anything except adding the part time nature because you might do it wrong. So far they accepted the format, but need the part time clarification. So give that but incorporate it in the whole letter. Also adding a few more details for duties won't hurt, but you have to be very careful as not to create another problem. That's why I said keep it the same. Also maybe it will be good to state exactly what is this part time experience, whether it is 20 hrs a week or more. That way you can argue that for example 4 years part time equals 2 yrs full time. Otherwise, they may turn around and say how many hours is the part time, and if it is only 10 hours a week, then clearly this does not equal it to 2 years full time.
 
Thanks Braniand

braniand said:
2B) Yes, I said do not change anything except adding the part time nature because you might do it wrong. So far they accepted the format, but need the part time clarification. So give that but incorporate it in the whole letter. Also adding a few more details for duties won't hurt, but you have to be very careful as not to create another problem. That's why I said keep it the same. Also maybe it will be good to state exactly what is this part time experience, whether it is 20 hrs a week or more. That way you can argue that for example 4 years part time equals 2 yrs full time. Otherwise, they may turn around and say how many hours is the part time, and if it is only 10 hours a week, then clearly this does not equal it to 2 years full time.
Click to expand...
I really appreciate your help.
 
hey Braniand

braniand said:
2B) Yes, I said do not change anything except adding the part time nature because you might do it wrong. So far they accepted the format, but need the part time clarification. So give that but incorporate it in the whole letter. Also adding a few more details for duties won't hurt, but you have to be very careful as not to create another problem. That's why I said keep it the same. Also maybe it will be good to state exactly what is this part time experience, whether it is 20 hrs a week or more. That way you can argue that for example 4 years part time equals 2 yrs full time. Otherwise, they may turn around and say how many hours is the part time, and if it is only 10 hours a week, then clearly this does not equal it to 2 years full time.
Click to expand...
hey braniand,
I remember you suggested not to change the new letter from the univ, I requested a new letter from my Professor mentioning clearly that it was a part time employment, duties will be the same as previous letter, I just added two more tools (TCP/IP and RDBMS), do you think it can cause problems ?
 
RFE: Have to prepare a letter compairing my work experience to labor requirements

pururwa said:
hey braniand,
I remember you suggested not to change the new letter from the univ, I requested a new letter from my Professor mentioning clearly that it was a part time employment, duties will be the same as previous letter, I just added two more tools (TCP/IP and RDBMS), do you think it can cause problems ?
Click to expand...
As some of you may know there is an RFE raising questions about my university RA/TA experience. The labor required MS+3, and it is essential for me to prove that univ exp was related since I won't be meeting the requirements without that.

My Research Assistant exp was in the same field, so I won't be having problems in showing it as a related one. Now, for Teaching Assistant (TA), CIS has questioned that this TA job doesn't seem to entail the same job duties as listed on the labor. Since, in TA, I helped the professor in teaching the course and conducting the labs, it wasn't directly related to 'software development job duties' as listed on the labor. However, the courses I taught were very much related to the technology listed on the labor. Now, how should I prove that my TA exp. was in fact in line with the labor requirement.

Also, I meet the labor requirement even if we just count my RA exp and not count my TA exp. But, since the RFE specifically raised questions about the TA, my lawyer has suggested that we have to clarify in detail as to how that exp was a related one. And, after clarifying that we can add a line saying 'eventhough the TA exp was a related one, the candidate still meets the requirements even if we don't count it towards the required exp.' Any suggestions as to why my attorney is so interested in proving that this exp was a related one ?

My lawyer has also suggested that we should not only clarify the univ exp. but do the same with the other experiences also. That way things will be clearer to the CIS and will help in the I140 approval. Now, since I have to write the letter comparing the labor requirements with my previous experiences, I am wondering if any of you may help me with the "format" of this letter. any suggestions or pointers?ts with my previous experience, I was wondering if any of you may help me with the "format" of this letter. any suggestions ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top