Third criteria of NIW

N

nist

Registered Users (C)
I wonder whether the following arguments alone would work for the third criterion of NIW:

My company needs my unique background for important government projects (NASA, Air Force) that require US GC or citizenship. If I go through LC process, it¡¯ll take much longer time before I can work on them and the projects will be adversely affected.

Please help. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by nist
I wonder whether the following arguments alone would work for the third criterion of NIW:

My company needs my unique background for important government projects (NASA, Air Force) that require US GC or citizenship. If I go through LC process, it¡¯ll take much longer time before I can work on them and the projects will be adversely affected.

Please help. Thanks.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!

Repeat after me: The United States needs your services right now, not your company. The United States and its citizens will be adversely affected if you have to go through LC, not your company.

The fact that your company will suffer is completely irrelavent to NIW. *That* is the point of the NYDOT decision.

Brian
 
Thanks for the message. I was aware of the points that you mentioned. But the thing is:

It's the NASA and Air Force projects that will suffer, although my company would also suffer.

Besides, consider this situation: Suppose I'm developing a material for my company that's very useful for military aircrafts and Space Shuttle. Does the fact that I'm working for MY COMPANY negate the fact that I will bring interest to the nation?

Please comment.
 
No, of course you can be working for a private company.

The whole point of the third arm of the NIW is to demonstrate YOUR particular value.

The fact that you are working on something that is important is NOT sufficient unless you can demonstrate your unique role. You need to be able to show that LC should be waived; in other words, your skills are so unique that it is counterproductive to take the time to see if there are similarly qualified Americans able to do the job.

Better get a lawyer.
 
Thanks for your message. Here again comes the point:

These projects need me as soon as possible. And my background is unique, although not enough for "extraordinaly ability". If I go through the LC process, I can not work on these projects. So the logic goes like this:

1. My back ground is unique (but maybe not extrodinary -- otherwise I should go for EB1-EA)

2. Current (and future) Air Force and NASA projects need me as soon as possible.

3. If LC is not waived, the process will take longer

Therefore, LC will adversely affect these projects and the national interests.

The question is: Is this arguement alone enough. or do I have to also prove that my background is not only unique, but also extrarodinary or close to extraordinary?

I did ask attorneys, but they give different and vague answers. I thought it wouldn't hurt to give this forum a try.

Hope someone can help. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by nist
Thanks for your message. Here again comes the point:


2. Current (and future) Air Force and NASA projects need me as soon as possible.


Hope someone can help. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I should think that the national interest part should be easy to show given these facts. The trick is to document it properly.

Brian
 
Thanks Brian.

The difficult thing is: I can not get very specific governent recommendations. All they can say is : 1) These projects are based on X company's product, which is very important; 2) According to the CEO of X comany, Mr. ABC will plays an important role in developing the products.

They can't further comment because they simply don't know enough about the technology, and they only care about the performance of the final product.

I can get very good recommendations from my company, because they know what I'm doing. And we are the only company that has the technology.

The question is, is this convincing enough? (given the fact that the strong recommendations only come from my comany)

Thanks.
 
Then get a specific statement that is written by someone who does understand the technology and have is signed by the government. Government signatures will carry lots more weight than a statement from your employer.
 
Thanks Jim. I wonder what the format of such a statement should be. Should my CEO write something, then ask a government official to cut and paste it into a letter and sign it, as if it were written totally by the official? Or should the official point out that he learned about these facts from my CEO, and agree with these facts? The first case might be more convincing but less genuine (and more difficult to get).
Thanks
 
I'd have the CEO (or whoever) write it since you clearly want an amount of technical information that cannot be provided anywhere else. I would then get it reviewed (and modified as necessary, at this point I normally only change wording in this type of situation) by the attorney assisting you with the case. Shen submit it to the government for any modification that they feel appropriate (it's their letter so they can modify it however they want). Have them print it on government letterhead and signed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top