Here is the RFE I received from VSC.
"You have not shown that the impact of the beneficiary's proposed activities will be national in scope, or that the national interest of the United States would be adversely affected if labor certification were required for this particular beneficiary. There are numberous engineers now employed or seeking employment in the US. Not every individual can be considered as being in the national interest. In this case, it is unclear how the beneficiary's experience and abilities set him apart from other highly qualified engineers in the field.
The record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's work has resulted in findings of major significance to his field which ahve been widely implemented or that the beneficiary is more skilled than others who perform the same or similar type of work.
While the beneficiary has published artilces in journals, the impact those articles have hand on the field is not demonstrated.
You have not submitted evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by ppers, government entitites, or professional organizations.
While the record contins evidence of the beneficary's past publication, no primary evidence has been submitted establishing the contribution these articles have had on the beneficary's field of expertise. How are his publications establishing him as more than the average researcher? What is the impact of his publications? Who is using his pbulished thoughts and results in their work?
It should be evident that the beneficary's findings have enjoyed widespred implemntation and acceptabnce by the scientific community."
How do you think? How will you respond to the RFE?
Thanks!
"You have not shown that the impact of the beneficiary's proposed activities will be national in scope, or that the national interest of the United States would be adversely affected if labor certification were required for this particular beneficiary. There are numberous engineers now employed or seeking employment in the US. Not every individual can be considered as being in the national interest. In this case, it is unclear how the beneficiary's experience and abilities set him apart from other highly qualified engineers in the field.
The record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's work has resulted in findings of major significance to his field which ahve been widely implemented or that the beneficiary is more skilled than others who perform the same or similar type of work.
While the beneficiary has published artilces in journals, the impact those articles have hand on the field is not demonstrated.
You have not submitted evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by ppers, government entitites, or professional organizations.
While the record contins evidence of the beneficary's past publication, no primary evidence has been submitted establishing the contribution these articles have had on the beneficary's field of expertise. How are his publications establishing him as more than the average researcher? What is the impact of his publications? Who is using his pbulished thoughts and results in their work?
It should be evident that the beneficary's findings have enjoyed widespred implemntation and acceptabnce by the scientific community."
How do you think? How will you respond to the RFE?
Thanks!