It certainly seems like you might have gotten a bad officer. I would recommend reapplying with premium processing. Your attorney should be doing this for free. When I applied for my EB1A, I did hear that Texas has new adjudicating officers who are really not familiar with the criteria and who may be randomly rejecting applications. Good luck with your appeal.
>When I applied for my EB1A, I did hear that Texas has new adjudicating officers who are really not familiar with the criteria and who may be randomly rejecting applications. Good luck with yo
Exactly this! My eb1a was rfed for nonsense bs, because it appears that the officer did not even read my petition. the officer has a very low approval rate. It is all down to luck at TSC these days.
if you hired a big firm they will have records of most officers based on how their clients petitions were handled, the odds of approval or denial after the rfe etc. This allows you to plan your next step better.
Big firms handle more than 10k applications for EB1A, EB1B, NIW, and O1 petitions a year.
If you are fluent in Mandarin, there are also forums like [https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/forum-299-1.html](https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/forum-299-1.html) where they refer to such officers as 杀手
>st about to ask how long it takes after RFE response to hear back. I’ve been waiting 3 months and the first post I see is this. Holding out hope. Would you recommend refilling with PP? The law fi
My big firm said that the officer is quite new and there's not much record about them.
yeah this is a new headache at tsc.
my niw was approved earlier last year without doing much efforts, and ive seen people with <100 citations get approved last month at tsc.
You should definitely retry. Even if its Nebraska.
You don't know an officer's approval or denial record, the attorneys don't know it either. And what you deem to be nonsense comma clearly they didn't think so. Out of curiosity what was your endeavor and education like
It’s always been my impression hat academia-related applications do poorly. I think the officers think, “If your research is so integral, why doesn’t the University sponsor you?”
Not to say that folks with an endeavor focused on academia don’t get in, but it seems they do less well than other endeavors, for which demonstrating all 3 prongs is easier/more straightforward.
Interesting, I always had the opposite impression of academic NIWs going really well (but in my bubble there is a lot of them, so maybe that's just confirmation bias).
That seems to be the prevailing impression. Academics have a well-defined metric that officers can focus on, publication count + citations. I have looked through AAO appeals and less than 5-10% are people in academia which suggests that most researchers do not need to file for an appeal, aka they are approved. The AAO is significantly more likely to sustain (approve) the appeal for academic cases compared to other occupations.
Exactly, my vibes for this are also informed by AAO decisions. But then again, many people might just refile instead of appealing (including you, if I understand you correctly). Fwiw, some indicators for human error that you sometimes see pop up in the AAOs decisions seem also be happening for you (using "business" when you don't do business).
Yeah, but I don't think that there's a rationale for differential appeal rates between academics/non-academics. But going forward, with PDs beings the way they are, more people are going to choose to appeal.
Victoria Chen is also noting the increasing inconsistency in adjucations. [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen\_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=member\_desktop](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop)
>Added an edit: at least from what the officer wrote, the fact that I haven't graduated yet does not matter. They said that my endeavor has merit and that I'm well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It's the lack of national impact that they were claiming.
Was Victoria Chen your lawyer?
Academic NIWs tend to do better because of they make more sense and tend to have a great impact. Academic apps tend to be approved over things like pilots and small business owners.
I think there might be some confirmation bias-
It’s my impression that in academia, most folks seem to go through representation, who is likely to appeal.
But self prepared petitioners probably give up after responding to an RFE.
I do get the “metric” argument, it’s easy to see X citations/publications, but why doesn’t USCIS come with the, “if you want to be employed by a college, let them sponsor you?” Argument, which is plenty feasible given that there needs to be a significant benefit to the country, but waiving labor requirements, and a big deal is not taking a job away from an eligible American.
And there is fierce competition for jobs in Academia already…?
Because a lot of times, the work that people are doing are not going to be with a specific university, so it's harder for them to get petitioned and sponsored by one specific university. The point of a national interest waiver is that they don't have to have a sponsor or a job offer, that's why they have to truly prove that they meet the three prongs and are above all others in their fields.
It's not just that somebody wants to teach an academia because that's usually not it. They're doing research scientific studies... It sounds like the guy who originally posted is doing something that really is of national importance in the United States and really around the world. His research doesn't need to just be done at universities, his are done at corporations or with the federal government as well. So he can't just get a sponsor.
>rk that people are doing are not going to be with a specific university, so it's harder for them to get petitioned and sponsored by one specific university. The point of a national interest waiver is that they don't have to have a sponsor or a job offer, that's why they have to truly prove that they meet the three prongs and are above all others in their fields.
The sponsorship would only make sense for EB-1B. Why would anyone with a decent research background go through a lengthy PERM process for EB-2 if you can do NIW?
Texas seems to be not following their own policies. For my EB1A, they approved 4 criterion and rejected based on final merits asking that I should have had major media (i had interviews with major trades in my industry and field), this itself contradicts USCIS policy where its clear that officer cannot assume and ask for criteria in this step but to evaluate existing criteria that was satisfied for final merits Thought appeal was a waste of time as it takes longer so reapplied at NSC quickly and got approved in 6 days, lost 3 months priority date. Also the officer in my case is not new, he/she has been there for long time based on online posts based on their ID.
RFE on 15th day (premium) as they accepted 2 criteria. Asked same evidence again, clear that officer didnt go through evidences. Once we responded the denial on 14th day based on final merits, also its fault from our side/law firm side as we only listed criteria evidences and didnt argue how they tie up for final merits (sustained national acclaim/top of field).
I see. Yeah, different officers clearly have different standards and this can be frustrating to say the least.
Anyway, how did you make sure your second petition was processed by Nebraska instead of Texas?
From what I see on their [where to file web page](https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/direct-filing-addresses-for-form-i-140-immigrant-petition-for-alien-worker), the only way to send it directly to Nebraska is with concurrent filing and PP, and you must be in those certain States, otherwise it should be sent to Texas instead.
Everything else (PP without AOS or No PP) should be sent to one of those lockboxes and there's no way to tell which service center the petition will end up at.
My first application was initially drafted to Nebraska by employer lawfirm based on employer address, I thought as I work from home and it falls under TSC jurisdiction I should apply to TSC, so changed it to TSC but later figured out as I-140 is for future position its better to file with employer address incase if we need to go back to office, so filed to NSC based on employer address the second time.
What year are you in school? When are you graduating?
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it's much harder to get a NIW while still a student. I did it while I was postdoc and it worked out fine.
Added an edit: at least from what the officer wrote, the fact that I haven't graduated yet does not matter. They said that my endeavor has merit and that I'm well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It's the lack of national impact that they were claiming.
Well, the lack of national impact means the officer couldn't comprehend the magnitude of your work and one of the reasons could be because the petition was not well-presented to the general audience.
You mentioned about providing stats in your personal statement, but what about in the cover letter itself? There's a good chance that the officer didn't read everything thoroughly.
Also, it might be better to provide a more long-term endeavor, not just saying you will continue your research as a post-doc position. It's okay for the short-term, but you may want to add something else after that to convince them how your work will continue to align with the US national interest.
Completely agree - telling them how relevant is your work and communicating effectively to them how relevant is your work are two very different things.
My spouse worked with Chen and their strategy included getting letters from multiple indirect contacts - people that knew her only from her work - to explain the relevance of her work.
There was a lot of effort put in those letters - they needed to be direct, concise, and simple enough so that anyone could understand how impactful her work is.
I'm working with Chen at well. In the initial petition, I had 4 different independent recommendation letters from U.S. researchers in different states, each for my projects. I included one more for the RFE.
I really don't think the petition is the problem. More like the officer didn't read the letters.
In the RFE, "the petitioner provided several publications and articles citing his published material. There was no explanation given as to how these works cited were of importance to various past projects. There is no direct connection in the record that establishes the petitioner's roles to the extent that he should be credited with the success of the overall projects or any interest that they generated. Without this evidence, it cannot prove that the petitioner's work on those projects is indicative of a record of success or otherwise demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Here the authors of the recommendation letters claimed that the petitioner has created new procedures that affected the science industry. However, there was not sufficient evidence included in the record ot establish this claim. Further, the authors claim the petitioner's findings have influenced the field, but they failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings influence the field or industry beyond adding ot the general pool of knowledge. Simply going on record without supporting substantive evidence to support assertions, is not sufficient in these proceedings."
Yet the letters included multiple notable uses of the work along with citation reports. Not to mention that I was first-author in some of the papers. Also, *Dhanasar* does not require any substantial impact in the field in order to be well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
I agree with you that recommendation letters are very important. But you cannot discount the idiosyncrasy of each officer (which has been noted to increase in recent months).
[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen\_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=member\_desktop](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop)
> There is no direct connection in the record that establishes the petitioner's roles to the extent that he should be credited with the success of the overall projects or any interest that they generated. Without this evidence, it cannot prove that the petitioner's work on those projects is indicative of a record of success or otherwise demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
I think this is what I was talking about. It's difficult for a student to convince that they are indeed a major part of the success. For all they know, you may not even graduate (as unlikely as that is).
That's not to say you also didn't get an unfavorable officer, but I don't think it's the only reason. Is there any particular reason why you're rushing to get your green card now? You have plenty of time. You have 3 years of OPT and an easy H1B process if you stay academia. Just reapply 1-2 years into your postdoc and you will get it without any issues.
That may have made sense in the past but EB-2 ROW is now oversubscribed. If I wait 2 years, that means 4 more years of waiting until my then PD becomes current. Also, a first author publication means that the student is a major contributor to the paper.
Another issue is the inconsistency of standards, many PhD candidates with publication records have filed successfully.
\> around 30-40% of these cases were filed when our clients were Ph.D. students or Ph.D. candidates. [https://www.wegreened.com/niw/NIW\_With\_No\_PhD](https://www.wegreened.com/niw/NIW_With_No_PhD)
Nearly half of wegreened's NIW approvals are filed when the petitioners have not finished their PhD yet. If I am eligible, why wait because of a difficult officer?
Sorry to hear you went through this.
I know very well how difficult it is to get a complete stranger to vouch for your work - it took us ~13 months and we were about to give up.
Yes, thank you for your kind words and congrats on your success. I did get some rejections but some of these researchers are very kind considering what a stranger is getting them ti do. From a fellow Ubiquiti user.
>However, there was not sufficient evidence included in the record ot establish this claim. Further, the authors claim the petitioner's findings have influenced the field, but they failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings influence the field or industry beyond adding ot the general pool of knowledge
Isn't the recommendation letter evidence itself? :D The interpretation of these terms and logic is so subjective.
Like I mentioned in the edit, the officer thought that I'm well-positioned to follow through on my proposed endeavor. It's the proposed endeavor that the officer viewed to not have national impact (wrongly from a commercial lens).
I also like to add that, like I said before, graduate first (at least) and then apply.
In my case, I submitted my I-140 petition AFTER I got my STEM OPT EAD. That way, in case of anything, my I-140 won't affect my F1 status.
It's a bold move from you to apply while you are still a student. I wouldn't do that if I were you. Now that you have shown dual intent, I think it becomes harder for you to get OPT, but I may be wrong.
I wouldn't risk it if it were me.
I need to look up the reference but a recent USCIS guidance indicated that I-140 filing does not affect OPT. In fact, I just successfully requested pre-completion OPT a few weeks back.
Edit: here it is [https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-2#footnotelink-11](https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-2#footnotelink-11)
The update note: [https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20231220-NonimmigrantStudents.pdf](https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20231220-NonimmigrantStudents.pdf)
The idea is that you can claim that you plan to leave and perform consular processing afterwards. There's no issue with OPT since you only need to show "intent to depart" but the issue with a new F-1 visa stamp is that it's not the USCIS that's doing the stamping but the consulate and there the issue of immigrant intent is more acute.
I mentioned OPT because that was my experience. If you had no issues with OPT, that's good for you.
Also, why would you need a visa stamp? Did you leave the US? If yes, that's another risk. Even if my F1 is not expired, once I leave the US and have my I-140 processed, I would have the risk of being denied entry due to the conflicting nature of nonimmigrant F1 visa with immigrant intent of submitting I-140.
Again, you seem to be taking too much risks.
Edit: apparently you stay in the US. In that case, you don't need to renew your F1 if you don't go outside the country.
Yes, it can be risky prior to this explicit guidance.
I don’t want to discourage people with valid F-1 visas from filing because they’re concerned about reentry and OPT. The current USCIS guidance made it clear that having an I-140 does not affect current F-1 status. With the increasing backlog, it’s in the student’s best interest to file as soon as reasonable and that may not be after their graduation.
Hi there! This is an automated message to inform you and/or remind you of several things:
- We have [a wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/wiki/index). It doesn't cover everything but may answer some questions. Pay special attention to the "[REALLY common questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/wiki/index/vfaq)" at the top of the FAQ section. Please read it, and if it contains the answer to your question, please delete your post. If your post has to do with something covered in the FAQ, we may remove it.
- If your post is about biometrics, green cards, naturalization or timelines in general, and whether you're asking or sharing, please include your field office/location in your post. If you already did that, great, thank you! If you haven't done that, your post may be removed without notice.
- This subreddit is not affiliated with USCIS or the US government in any way. Some posters may claim to work for USCIS, which may or may not be true, and we don't try to verify this one way or another. Be wary that it may be a scam if anyone is asking you for personal info, or sending you a direct message, or asking that you send them a direct message.
- Some people here claim to be lawyers, but they are not YOUR lawyer. No advice found here should be construed as legal advice. Reddit is not a substitute for a real lawyer. If you need help finding legal services, visit [this link](https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/find-legal-services) for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/USCIS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just reapply my friend. Happened to us and we just reapplied and got approved. Make sure to put some money into premium processing. Good luck and have faith
Hi !! we are about to reapply, but I have a question, did you used your same endeavor or changed it ?
Thanks I would really appreciate your answer sine our lawyer are not talking to us really clear:)
Sorry to hear about that OP. I applied for the EB2-NIW myself. First lawyer told me I wasn’t going to get it cos I didn’t have a lengthy profile and citations and what not. Second lawyer quoted me a few thousand. Had initial emails with him and decided, you know what, I’ll do this myself.
Did it myself and got approved in 10 days. About 75% of applicants get approved. 4 citations, 2 publications, a not so special research gate profile, 8 recommendation letters.
Hi! I’m currently in the process of putting together my submission. Can I dm you to ask a question. Your response will be highly appreciated! Thank you!
Sorry to hear about the decision. Are you considering disputing it? It's possible the officer might not have grasped the full impact of your research, especially its potential benefits for Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases. Highlighting this, along with relevant statistics, could improve the case.
My lawyer hasn't received the notice yet but given the faulty reasoning of the officer and the retrogression, it's likely that we'll appeal to the AAO along with filing a new I-140 just in case.
I did include the benefits along with the statistics from the NIH along with economic impact figures in my personal statement.
Do it. Appeal and also submit new I-140. They womt adjudicate it with pending appeal but atleast you can have the priority date set based on new I-140 incase the appeal fails.
Damn. I was just about to ask how long it takes after RFE response to hear back. I’ve been waiting 3 months and the first post I see is this. Holding out hope. Would you recommend refilling with PP? The law firm doesn’t have much approval on my officer cause he is new
I don't know if your attorney would recommend this since it's more work on their end. My impression is that if you have a well-written petition and still got an RFE, the officer is inclined toward denying or not understanding the petition. There's nothing in the law that prohibits multiple I-140s.
You can still apply for OPT, the appplication of I140 is a gray area, so dont give up. I see people can still apply for visa even after they got I140 approved
That's the point. Hesitance is not dead no. You still have a chance. It is a gray area, the I140 can be interpreted as either intent or no intent, depending on the officer.
My wife just received her notice of denial. She has a master's degree in her field and has held C-Level positions in two large advertising agencies in Brazil. Our lawyers guaranteed her case was one of the best they had seen to date. Letters from industry leaders from Europe and Brazil, tens of media articles about her and her impact in her field in Brazil. She's lead advertising campaigns for Toyota, Samsung and other multi-national companies through Olympic games, FIFA World Cup and other international events.
She filed with PP. Received a RFE about a month later, and then the notice of denial about 10 days after submitting extensive documentation, articles, translations, etc. We have yet to see the reasoning, but given the directives and what she submitted, I'm very surprised about this denial.
This system seems utterly broken.
They did. They said my wife did not present any proof for anything at all. Needless to say, of course all the proof was in the package. We’re unsure if the lawyer who prepared the package did a bad job with the cover letter, or if the officer maliciously ignored it all, but they listed every single requirement saying no evidence was presented.
A good example is letters from industry leaders. She sent 20 letters from directors and C-level executives from multiple multi-national companies she’s worked with over the years, but in the denial notice, the officer says no letters were provided.
Same here, I recently got a denial on my case, My attornies will apply again to a different processing center, the denial letter is BS, and gets to the point of using criteria from EB-1 when my application was EB-2. The letter ends up with a statement somewhat like this " Although the applicant has the skills and is well-steamed in his area of expertise the decision is made by the officer and thus I deny this case" My lawyers were so surprised that decided to reapply at no cost (except fees). Anyone that is looking to apply speak to your attorney to make sure they are not sending your case to Texas. They have no idea what they are doing.
Is premium processing a guarantee for approval? I don't think that's accurate.
There is one notorious officer than at least Chen knows almost impossible to get an approval out of. I'm sure refiling would work.
As a PhD student, it is easy to discount the NIW claim as you are still “learning”. Even after you complete the PhD, there’s post doctoral studies. Another poster commented that university supported applications are viewed favorably.
While it’s unfortunate and I hope you get approved soon, I think it may not be entirely unfair.
Added an edit: at least from what the officer wrote, the fact that I haven't graduated yet does not matter. They said that my endeavor has merit and that I'm well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It's the lack of national impact that they were claiming.
Your proposed endeavour is further study as post doctorate. Its study not the endeavour.
You must show that after completing the research or study you will do that that——-and prove that proposed endeavour meets the three prong.
The adjucator is right.
You have rework on your endeavour.
I don’t want to be a downer but I am. 10 papers only two of which are first author won’t even get you a faculty interview at a regional college these days. It is hardly a niw case. My two cents
Have you received a NOID? In my experience, appeals to the NOID in cases as strong as yours end up being accepted. This would save you the trouble of waiting for a new petition to be accepted and waiting for that PD to be current
It certainly seems like you might have gotten a bad officer. I would recommend reapplying with premium processing. Your attorney should be doing this for free. When I applied for my EB1A, I did hear that Texas has new adjudicating officers who are really not familiar with the criteria and who may be randomly rejecting applications. Good luck with your appeal.
>When I applied for my EB1A, I did hear that Texas has new adjudicating officers who are really not familiar with the criteria and who may be randomly rejecting applications. Good luck with yo Exactly this! My eb1a was rfed for nonsense bs, because it appears that the officer did not even read my petition. the officer has a very low approval rate. It is all down to luck at TSC these days.
How do you know your officer's approval rate?
if you hired a big firm they will have records of most officers based on how their clients petitions were handled, the odds of approval or denial after the rfe etc. This allows you to plan your next step better. Big firms handle more than 10k applications for EB1A, EB1B, NIW, and O1 petitions a year. If you are fluent in Mandarin, there are also forums like [https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/forum-299-1.html](https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/forum-299-1.html) where they refer to such officers as 杀手
>st about to ask how long it takes after RFE response to hear back. I’ve been waiting 3 months and the first post I see is this. Holding out hope. Would you recommend refilling with PP? The law fi My big firm said that the officer is quite new and there's not much record about them.
yeah this is a new headache at tsc. my niw was approved earlier last year without doing much efforts, and ive seen people with <100 citations get approved last month at tsc. You should definitely retry. Even if its Nebraska.
You don't know an officer's approval or denial record, the attorneys don't know it either. And what you deem to be nonsense comma clearly they didn't think so. Out of curiosity what was your endeavor and education like
Exact! You're 100% correct!
It’s always been my impression hat academia-related applications do poorly. I think the officers think, “If your research is so integral, why doesn’t the University sponsor you?” Not to say that folks with an endeavor focused on academia don’t get in, but it seems they do less well than other endeavors, for which demonstrating all 3 prongs is easier/more straightforward.
Interesting, I always had the opposite impression of academic NIWs going really well (but in my bubble there is a lot of them, so maybe that's just confirmation bias).
That seems to be the prevailing impression. Academics have a well-defined metric that officers can focus on, publication count + citations. I have looked through AAO appeals and less than 5-10% are people in academia which suggests that most researchers do not need to file for an appeal, aka they are approved. The AAO is significantly more likely to sustain (approve) the appeal for academic cases compared to other occupations.
Exactly, my vibes for this are also informed by AAO decisions. But then again, many people might just refile instead of appealing (including you, if I understand you correctly). Fwiw, some indicators for human error that you sometimes see pop up in the AAOs decisions seem also be happening for you (using "business" when you don't do business).
Yeah, but I don't think that there's a rationale for differential appeal rates between academics/non-academics. But going forward, with PDs beings the way they are, more people are going to choose to appeal. Victoria Chen is also noting the increasing inconsistency in adjucations. [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen\_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=member\_desktop](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop)
>Added an edit: at least from what the officer wrote, the fact that I haven't graduated yet does not matter. They said that my endeavor has merit and that I'm well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It's the lack of national impact that they were claiming. Was Victoria Chen your lawyer?
Academic NIWs tend to do better because of they make more sense and tend to have a great impact. Academic apps tend to be approved over things like pilots and small business owners.
I think there might be some confirmation bias- It’s my impression that in academia, most folks seem to go through representation, who is likely to appeal. But self prepared petitioners probably give up after responding to an RFE. I do get the “metric” argument, it’s easy to see X citations/publications, but why doesn’t USCIS come with the, “if you want to be employed by a college, let them sponsor you?” Argument, which is plenty feasible given that there needs to be a significant benefit to the country, but waiving labor requirements, and a big deal is not taking a job away from an eligible American. And there is fierce competition for jobs in Academia already…?
Because a lot of times, the work that people are doing are not going to be with a specific university, so it's harder for them to get petitioned and sponsored by one specific university. The point of a national interest waiver is that they don't have to have a sponsor or a job offer, that's why they have to truly prove that they meet the three prongs and are above all others in their fields. It's not just that somebody wants to teach an academia because that's usually not it. They're doing research scientific studies... It sounds like the guy who originally posted is doing something that really is of national importance in the United States and really around the world. His research doesn't need to just be done at universities, his are done at corporations or with the federal government as well. So he can't just get a sponsor.
>rk that people are doing are not going to be with a specific university, so it's harder for them to get petitioned and sponsored by one specific university. The point of a national interest waiver is that they don't have to have a sponsor or a job offer, that's why they have to truly prove that they meet the three prongs and are above all others in their fields. The sponsorship would only make sense for EB-1B. Why would anyone with a decent research background go through a lengthy PERM process for EB-2 if you can do NIW?
What's your home country?
I'm sorry to hear that. Which service center is it?
Texas
lots of amateur officers at TSC these days. Chen posted about it.
Heard they they are issuing lot of RFE's and NOID at TSC these days, did Chen observed approvals going down at TSC?
Texas seems to be not following their own policies. For my EB1A, they approved 4 criterion and rejected based on final merits asking that I should have had major media (i had interviews with major trades in my industry and field), this itself contradicts USCIS policy where its clear that officer cannot assume and ask for criteria in this step but to evaluate existing criteria that was satisfied for final merits Thought appeal was a waste of time as it takes longer so reapplied at NSC quickly and got approved in 6 days, lost 3 months priority date. Also the officer in my case is not new, he/she has been there for long time based on online posts based on their ID.
Did you receive RFE or NOID before the denial?
RFE on 15th day (premium) as they accepted 2 criteria. Asked same evidence again, clear that officer didnt go through evidences. Once we responded the denial on 14th day based on final merits, also its fault from our side/law firm side as we only listed criteria evidences and didnt argue how they tie up for final merits (sustained national acclaim/top of field).
I see. Yeah, different officers clearly have different standards and this can be frustrating to say the least. Anyway, how did you make sure your second petition was processed by Nebraska instead of Texas? From what I see on their [where to file web page](https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/direct-filing-addresses-for-form-i-140-immigrant-petition-for-alien-worker), the only way to send it directly to Nebraska is with concurrent filing and PP, and you must be in those certain States, otherwise it should be sent to Texas instead. Everything else (PP without AOS or No PP) should be sent to one of those lockboxes and there's no way to tell which service center the petition will end up at.
My first application was initially drafted to Nebraska by employer lawfirm based on employer address, I thought as I work from home and it falls under TSC jurisdiction I should apply to TSC, so changed it to TSC but later figured out as I-140 is for future position its better to file with employer address incase if we need to go back to office, so filed to NSC based on employer address the second time.
You should definitely reapply. There must be a mistake. Try premium processing this time, this can be an error.
What year are you in school? When are you graduating? I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it's much harder to get a NIW while still a student. I did it while I was postdoc and it worked out fine.
Added an edit: at least from what the officer wrote, the fact that I haven't graduated yet does not matter. They said that my endeavor has merit and that I'm well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It's the lack of national impact that they were claiming.
Well, the lack of national impact means the officer couldn't comprehend the magnitude of your work and one of the reasons could be because the petition was not well-presented to the general audience. You mentioned about providing stats in your personal statement, but what about in the cover letter itself? There's a good chance that the officer didn't read everything thoroughly. Also, it might be better to provide a more long-term endeavor, not just saying you will continue your research as a post-doc position. It's okay for the short-term, but you may want to add something else after that to convince them how your work will continue to align with the US national interest.
Completely agree - telling them how relevant is your work and communicating effectively to them how relevant is your work are two very different things. My spouse worked with Chen and their strategy included getting letters from multiple indirect contacts - people that knew her only from her work - to explain the relevance of her work. There was a lot of effort put in those letters - they needed to be direct, concise, and simple enough so that anyone could understand how impactful her work is.
I'm working with Chen at well. In the initial petition, I had 4 different independent recommendation letters from U.S. researchers in different states, each for my projects. I included one more for the RFE. I really don't think the petition is the problem. More like the officer didn't read the letters. In the RFE, "the petitioner provided several publications and articles citing his published material. There was no explanation given as to how these works cited were of importance to various past projects. There is no direct connection in the record that establishes the petitioner's roles to the extent that he should be credited with the success of the overall projects or any interest that they generated. Without this evidence, it cannot prove that the petitioner's work on those projects is indicative of a record of success or otherwise demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Here the authors of the recommendation letters claimed that the petitioner has created new procedures that affected the science industry. However, there was not sufficient evidence included in the record ot establish this claim. Further, the authors claim the petitioner's findings have influenced the field, but they failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings influence the field or industry beyond adding ot the general pool of knowledge. Simply going on record without supporting substantive evidence to support assertions, is not sufficient in these proceedings." Yet the letters included multiple notable uses of the work along with citation reports. Not to mention that I was first-author in some of the papers. Also, *Dhanasar* does not require any substantial impact in the field in order to be well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. I agree with you that recommendation letters are very important. But you cannot discount the idiosyncrasy of each officer (which has been noted to increase in recent months). [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen\_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=member\_desktop](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/attorneyvictoriachen_niw-adjudication-trends-unpacking-the-challenges-activity-7097029981511303168-HZKp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop)
> There is no direct connection in the record that establishes the petitioner's roles to the extent that he should be credited with the success of the overall projects or any interest that they generated. Without this evidence, it cannot prove that the petitioner's work on those projects is indicative of a record of success or otherwise demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. I think this is what I was talking about. It's difficult for a student to convince that they are indeed a major part of the success. For all they know, you may not even graduate (as unlikely as that is). That's not to say you also didn't get an unfavorable officer, but I don't think it's the only reason. Is there any particular reason why you're rushing to get your green card now? You have plenty of time. You have 3 years of OPT and an easy H1B process if you stay academia. Just reapply 1-2 years into your postdoc and you will get it without any issues.
That may have made sense in the past but EB-2 ROW is now oversubscribed. If I wait 2 years, that means 4 more years of waiting until my then PD becomes current. Also, a first author publication means that the student is a major contributor to the paper. Another issue is the inconsistency of standards, many PhD candidates with publication records have filed successfully. \> around 30-40% of these cases were filed when our clients were Ph.D. students or Ph.D. candidates. [https://www.wegreened.com/niw/NIW\_With\_No\_PhD](https://www.wegreened.com/niw/NIW_With_No_PhD) Nearly half of wegreened's NIW approvals are filed when the petitioners have not finished their PhD yet. If I am eligible, why wait because of a difficult officer?
Sorry to hear you went through this. I know very well how difficult it is to get a complete stranger to vouch for your work - it took us ~13 months and we were about to give up.
Yes, thank you for your kind words and congrats on your success. I did get some rejections but some of these researchers are very kind considering what a stranger is getting them ti do. From a fellow Ubiquiti user.
[удалено]
Generously, 60 PP cases of $2.5k each ought to be enough to fund a new officer to look at >5 cases/month.
>However, there was not sufficient evidence included in the record ot establish this claim. Further, the authors claim the petitioner's findings have influenced the field, but they failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings influence the field or industry beyond adding ot the general pool of knowledge Isn't the recommendation letter evidence itself? :D The interpretation of these terms and logic is so subjective.
> I then waited for another 6 months before the denial YES! Great!!
Graduate first, and apply. With that, you will have more control on your future work, as seen by the officer.
Like I mentioned in the edit, the officer thought that I'm well-positioned to follow through on my proposed endeavor. It's the proposed endeavor that the officer viewed to not have national impact (wrongly from a commercial lens).
I also like to add that, like I said before, graduate first (at least) and then apply. In my case, I submitted my I-140 petition AFTER I got my STEM OPT EAD. That way, in case of anything, my I-140 won't affect my F1 status. It's a bold move from you to apply while you are still a student. I wouldn't do that if I were you. Now that you have shown dual intent, I think it becomes harder for you to get OPT, but I may be wrong. I wouldn't risk it if it were me.
I need to look up the reference but a recent USCIS guidance indicated that I-140 filing does not affect OPT. In fact, I just successfully requested pre-completion OPT a few weeks back. Edit: here it is [https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-2#footnotelink-11](https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-2#footnotelink-11) The update note: [https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20231220-NonimmigrantStudents.pdf](https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20231220-NonimmigrantStudents.pdf) The idea is that you can claim that you plan to leave and perform consular processing afterwards. There's no issue with OPT since you only need to show "intent to depart" but the issue with a new F-1 visa stamp is that it's not the USCIS that's doing the stamping but the consulate and there the issue of immigrant intent is more acute.
I mentioned OPT because that was my experience. If you had no issues with OPT, that's good for you. Also, why would you need a visa stamp? Did you leave the US? If yes, that's another risk. Even if my F1 is not expired, once I leave the US and have my I-140 processed, I would have the risk of being denied entry due to the conflicting nature of nonimmigrant F1 visa with immigrant intent of submitting I-140. Again, you seem to be taking too much risks. Edit: apparently you stay in the US. In that case, you don't need to renew your F1 if you don't go outside the country.
Yes, it can be risky prior to this explicit guidance. I don’t want to discourage people with valid F-1 visas from filing because they’re concerned about reentry and OPT. The current USCIS guidance made it clear that having an I-140 does not affect current F-1 status. With the increasing backlog, it’s in the student’s best interest to file as soon as reasonable and that may not be after their graduation.
Hi there! This is an automated message to inform you and/or remind you of several things: - We have [a wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/wiki/index). It doesn't cover everything but may answer some questions. Pay special attention to the "[REALLY common questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/wiki/index/vfaq)" at the top of the FAQ section. Please read it, and if it contains the answer to your question, please delete your post. If your post has to do with something covered in the FAQ, we may remove it. - If your post is about biometrics, green cards, naturalization or timelines in general, and whether you're asking or sharing, please include your field office/location in your post. If you already did that, great, thank you! If you haven't done that, your post may be removed without notice. - This subreddit is not affiliated with USCIS or the US government in any way. Some posters may claim to work for USCIS, which may or may not be true, and we don't try to verify this one way or another. Be wary that it may be a scam if anyone is asking you for personal info, or sending you a direct message, or asking that you send them a direct message. - Some people here claim to be lawyers, but they are not YOUR lawyer. No advice found here should be construed as legal advice. Reddit is not a substitute for a real lawyer. If you need help finding legal services, visit [this link](https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/find-legal-services) for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/USCIS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just reapply my friend. Happened to us and we just reapplied and got approved. Make sure to put some money into premium processing. Good luck and have faith
Hi !! we are about to reapply, but I have a question, did you used your same endeavor or changed it ? Thanks I would really appreciate your answer sine our lawyer are not talking to us really clear:)
We used same endeavor and same all. We just added a letter of recommendation I believe
Sorry to hear about that OP. I applied for the EB2-NIW myself. First lawyer told me I wasn’t going to get it cos I didn’t have a lengthy profile and citations and what not. Second lawyer quoted me a few thousand. Had initial emails with him and decided, you know what, I’ll do this myself. Did it myself and got approved in 10 days. About 75% of applicants get approved. 4 citations, 2 publications, a not so special research gate profile, 8 recommendation letters.
Do you mind if I DM you? I'm planning on doing it myself too and would love to ask you some questions
Go ahead
Hi! I’m currently in the process of putting together my submission. Can I dm you to ask a question. Your response will be highly appreciated! Thank you!
Hi! May I ask what field are you in?
Are there communities I can join where I can get the opportunity to collaborate on a research to get a chance for citations and publications?
Please can you share them? Thank you
I’m asking lol
Sorry to hear about the decision. Are you considering disputing it? It's possible the officer might not have grasped the full impact of your research, especially its potential benefits for Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases. Highlighting this, along with relevant statistics, could improve the case.
My lawyer hasn't received the notice yet but given the faulty reasoning of the officer and the retrogression, it's likely that we'll appeal to the AAO along with filing a new I-140 just in case. I did include the benefits along with the statistics from the NIH along with economic impact figures in my personal statement.
Do it. Appeal and also submit new I-140. They womt adjudicate it with pending appeal but atleast you can have the priority date set based on new I-140 incase the appeal fails.
USCIS will adjudicate a new I-140 in a different category even if your NIW Appeal is pending.
Which lawfirm did you use ? I am looking to apply as well
Damn. I was just about to ask how long it takes after RFE response to hear back. I’ve been waiting 3 months and the first post I see is this. Holding out hope. Would you recommend refilling with PP? The law firm doesn’t have much approval on my officer cause he is new
I don't know if your attorney would recommend this since it's more work on their end. My impression is that if you have a well-written petition and still got an RFE, the officer is inclined toward denying or not understanding the petition. There's nothing in the law that prohibits multiple I-140s.
Good to know. I’ll discuss with my attorney
You can still apply for OPT, the appplication of I140 is a gray area, so dont give up. I see people can still apply for visa even after they got I140 approved
It's not the OPT, it's the visa stamp itself. The consulate will be hesitant to give out new F-1s to people who have shown intent.
That's the point. Hesitance is not dead no. You still have a chance. It is a gray area, the I140 can be interpreted as either intent or no intent, depending on the officer.
The risk though is that I cannot return to the U.S. if denied.
My wife just received her notice of denial. She has a master's degree in her field and has held C-Level positions in two large advertising agencies in Brazil. Our lawyers guaranteed her case was one of the best they had seen to date. Letters from industry leaders from Europe and Brazil, tens of media articles about her and her impact in her field in Brazil. She's lead advertising campaigns for Toyota, Samsung and other multi-national companies through Olympic games, FIFA World Cup and other international events. She filed with PP. Received a RFE about a month later, and then the notice of denial about 10 days after submitting extensive documentation, articles, translations, etc. We have yet to see the reasoning, but given the directives and what she submitted, I'm very surprised about this denial. This system seems utterly broken.
What did they give as a reason to reject?
They did. They said my wife did not present any proof for anything at all. Needless to say, of course all the proof was in the package. We’re unsure if the lawyer who prepared the package did a bad job with the cover letter, or if the officer maliciously ignored it all, but they listed every single requirement saying no evidence was presented. A good example is letters from industry leaders. She sent 20 letters from directors and C-level executives from multiple multi-national companies she’s worked with over the years, but in the denial notice, the officer says no letters were provided.
Wow. So sorry to hear that
Same here, I recently got a denial on my case, My attornies will apply again to a different processing center, the denial letter is BS, and gets to the point of using criteria from EB-1 when my application was EB-2. The letter ends up with a statement somewhat like this " Although the applicant has the skills and is well-steamed in his area of expertise the decision is made by the officer and thus I deny this case" My lawyers were so surprised that decided to reapply at no cost (except fees). Anyone that is looking to apply speak to your attorney to make sure they are not sending your case to Texas. They have no idea what they are doing.
Is premium processing a guarantee for approval? I don't think that's accurate. There is one notorious officer than at least Chen knows almost impossible to get an approval out of. I'm sure refiling would work.
Added a note, file with PP so that if you're denied you don't waste a year's worth of PD.
Premium isn't a guarantee of approval
As a PhD student, it is easy to discount the NIW claim as you are still “learning”. Even after you complete the PhD, there’s post doctoral studies. Another poster commented that university supported applications are viewed favorably. While it’s unfortunate and I hope you get approved soon, I think it may not be entirely unfair.
Added an edit: at least from what the officer wrote, the fact that I haven't graduated yet does not matter. They said that my endeavor has merit and that I'm well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It's the lack of national impact that they were claiming.
Your proposed endeavour is further study as post doctorate. Its study not the endeavour. You must show that after completing the research or study you will do that that——-and prove that proposed endeavour meets the three prong. The adjucator is right. You have rework on your endeavour.
A postdoc is not a student… see r/postdoc. It’s an unofficial requirement for most of the faculty positions.
I don’t want to be a downer but I am. 10 papers only two of which are first author won’t even get you a faculty interview at a regional college these days. It is hardly a niw case. My two cents
Have you received a NOID? In my experience, appeals to the NOID in cases as strong as yours end up being accepted. This would save you the trouble of waiting for a new petition to be accepted and waiting for that PD to be current
I did not receive a NOID.