Hi, Friends,
Today I got a really bad news on my EB1A PP at TSC
.
A Notice of Intend to Deny faxed to my Attorney this afternoon. I found that the NOID actually requests evidence of everything, exactly like the general RFE my colleagues received (also EB1A @ TSC), but it is called Intent to Deny and, instead of 12 weeks, it only gives 30 days to respond.
Here is the process I had gone through:
EB1A filed 01/19/2007, PP received 03/01/2007, Notice date 03/02/2007, computer glitch same day, LUD 03/11/2007, then NOID today (03/16/2007, the last day of PP deadline). I think they simply do not have time to process the case, then just throw out a NOID .
Here is what I claimed in my initial petition:
I. Evidence of Dr. xxx's original scientific contributions of major significance to the field (here I also provided recommendation letters from well-known experts world-wide to prove the national and international acclaim and recognition in the field);
II. Evidence of Dr. xxx's authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications (11 journal papers with 5 as 1st author, and 9 conference papers). Here I also put citations of my work in 6 review papers and lots of journal articles by peer researchers (totally 42 citations) to show the significance of my work;
III. Evidence of published material in professional publications relating to Dr. xxx's work in the field for which classification is sought (here I put (1) Faculty of 1000 evaluation and recommendation of my work which says my paper is “Essential Reading for researchers in the field…” to indicate significance of my work, and (2) I also put here citations and discussions of my work in others’ papers (totally 42 citations including 6 review papers) to establish the significance
IV. Evidence that Dr. xxx has served as the judge of the work of others (requested by journal to write review article, review manuscripts and serve on journal’s editorial board); (I have so far reviewed 10 manuscripts for 5 journals)
V. Evidence that Dr. xxx has been elected as a full member of Sigma Xi, an organization that has highly selective membership criteria.(I also have membership on AICHE, ASM and ACS, but I did not put them since they are basically fee-based)
VI. Other supporting materials, such as 1) my work resulted in a successful application in an industry field test, 2) an email from a Henkel scientist requesting for collaboration (the email was addressed to my advisor though)
I submitted totally 8 recommendation letters, among them, 2 are my Ph.D. advisor and postdoc advisor, other 6 are independent experts, including a NAS member, an editor-in-chief of a journal who invited me for a review paper and to review manuscripts submitted to his journal, these experts are from Germany, Israel, Mexico, and US.
My attorney said that we already presented them with the type of proof they were looking for. However, they are now taking the position generally that EB-1A should be very restrictive. He agrees with me that it appears they did not even read our presentation. He said it is strange because they normally give an RFE, which would have the same questions as I see on this NOID. It is also strange that they are issuing a NOID, but he has seen on his attorney's bulletin boards that the Service Centers are now going with NOID's in order to cut back on the amount of time that the applicant has to prepare a response. He thinks that they are getting instructions to be much tougher on EB-1a's because so many people are trying for them now.
Since I only have 30 days (from today), what additional evidence should I provide?
Dear friends, I need your suggestions urgently!
Thanks!!!!!!!!!
Today I got a really bad news on my EB1A PP at TSC
.A Notice of Intend to Deny faxed to my Attorney this afternoon. I found that the NOID actually requests evidence of everything, exactly like the general RFE my colleagues received (also EB1A @ TSC), but it is called Intent to Deny and, instead of 12 weeks, it only gives 30 days to respond.
Here is the process I had gone through:
EB1A filed 01/19/2007, PP received 03/01/2007, Notice date 03/02/2007, computer glitch same day, LUD 03/11/2007, then NOID today (03/16/2007, the last day of PP deadline). I think they simply do not have time to process the case, then just throw out a NOID
. Here is what I claimed in my initial petition:
I. Evidence of Dr. xxx's original scientific contributions of major significance to the field (here I also provided recommendation letters from well-known experts world-wide to prove the national and international acclaim and recognition in the field);
II. Evidence of Dr. xxx's authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications (11 journal papers with 5 as 1st author, and 9 conference papers). Here I also put citations of my work in 6 review papers and lots of journal articles by peer researchers (totally 42 citations) to show the significance of my work;
III. Evidence of published material in professional publications relating to Dr. xxx's work in the field for which classification is sought (here I put (1) Faculty of 1000 evaluation and recommendation of my work which says my paper is “Essential Reading for researchers in the field…” to indicate significance of my work, and (2) I also put here citations and discussions of my work in others’ papers (totally 42 citations including 6 review papers) to establish the significance
IV. Evidence that Dr. xxx has served as the judge of the work of others (requested by journal to write review article, review manuscripts and serve on journal’s editorial board); (I have so far reviewed 10 manuscripts for 5 journals)
V. Evidence that Dr. xxx has been elected as a full member of Sigma Xi, an organization that has highly selective membership criteria.(I also have membership on AICHE, ASM and ACS, but I did not put them since they are basically fee-based)
VI. Other supporting materials, such as 1) my work resulted in a successful application in an industry field test, 2) an email from a Henkel scientist requesting for collaboration (the email was addressed to my advisor though)
I submitted totally 8 recommendation letters, among them, 2 are my Ph.D. advisor and postdoc advisor, other 6 are independent experts, including a NAS member, an editor-in-chief of a journal who invited me for a review paper and to review manuscripts submitted to his journal, these experts are from Germany, Israel, Mexico, and US.
My attorney said that we already presented them with the type of proof they were looking for. However, they are now taking the position generally that EB-1A should be very restrictive. He agrees with me that it appears they did not even read our presentation. He said it is strange because they normally give an RFE, which would have the same questions as I see on this NOID. It is also strange that they are issuing a NOID, but he has seen on his attorney's bulletin boards that the Service Centers are now going with NOID's in order to cut back on the amount of time that the applicant has to prepare a response. He thinks that they are getting instructions to be much tougher on EB-1a's because so many people are trying for them now.
Since I only have 30 days (from today), what additional evidence should I provide?
Dear friends, I need your suggestions urgently!
Thanks!!!!!!!!!