Timeline:
E140 EB1A pp DIY on 07/14/2011 TSC (failed once last year probably because
rush)
RFE 08/04/2011
Response to RFE 09/07/2011
Approve email notice 09/15/2011
Background: PHD in solid mechanics at CAS, now a postdoc at one university
Publications: 19 English, 3 Chinese.
Citations: ~300
Judge of others: ~25 review invitations of 8 journals including APL, JAP’s
editor supporting letters.
6+2 recommendation letters- 1 is from my current boss. The rest are from
independent professors.
Claimed: Authorship, contribution, and judge of others
IO agreed on authorship and judge of others but did not approve “
significant contributions” and what he suggested are the following
documents (I picture this as a template since this is exactly the same as
other posts on this board):
1) Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution to the field
2) Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work important.
3) Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contribution of major significance.
4) Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution(s) has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited;
Reply to RFE:
1) I asked for two additional recommendation letters---in response to his
point 3.
2) I reiterated that my citation (total ~300) is unusually high, especially
for my major. And like most people do, I listed big names that cited my
papers and highlighted what they said in their papers. --- This
demonstrates my work is widely cited (his point 4).
3) I listed the citations of my each paper, in comparison with the average
citations of that journal. --- This illustrates I’m superior to my peers.
Plus, I had some awards to strengthen this point.
4) I did play a trick, which I bought from other at MITBBS. I have compared
“H-index” of mine with four other assistant professors’. Mine is 11.
Comparing with others in Civil engineering AP, this number is well above
average and places myself on the very top of the peers in my field of
endeavor (totality).
One thing I want to share, which I thought is a little bit aggressive but
maybe useful, is that at the end of the Response to RFE, I said: “According
to Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0005.1: Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with
Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (
AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD11-14 Page 14: “ If the USCIS officer
determines that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate these requirements,
the USCIS officer should not merely make general assertions regarding this
failure. Rather, the USCIS officer must articulate the specific reasons as
to why the USCIS officer concludes that the petitioner, by a preponderance
of the evidence, has not demonstrated that the alien is an alien of
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the INA. Therefore, I
hope the officer examines my original petition letter along with this
response letter and the evidence submitted thoroughly and make decision
fairly, objective and unambiguous. ”
This gives the IO impression that I have thoroughly understood how this
decision making job works, please don’t play any trick with me. Referring
to One quote “Good lawyers read books, best lawyers read people” in
popular drama TV “suits”, same idea.
I have learned a lot from this board and will continue to learn for my 485
case. Hope everyone on this board will get what you want soon. Bless us.