To give you folks an idea of what gets through easily. We won a case for a chemist with over 14 years of teaching and research experience. This applicant was the author of over 63 peer-reviewed research publications and presented his work at 17 conferences and symposia. He was also invited to present at a multitude of seminars. This applicant authored 5 book chapters and technical proceedings. He qualified for the category based on his extensive publication record as well as his acting as a judge of others' work. He performed peer reviews of manuscripts for Journal American Chemical Society, Journal Physical Chemistry and Journal of Computational Chemistry and participated as an organizer/coordinator for various international conferences. He also received prestigious fellowship awards and was featured in Marquis Who's Who in Science and Engineering.
EB1 Green Card Sample Cases
These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.
We won a case for a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry as an Outstanding Researcher. This applicant had over 22 years of research experience in the field and was a noted expert. We submitted documentary evidence to show his multiple patents and the commercialization of his patented work. We also provided extensive documentation to show his significant publication record and the multitude of citations resulting from his innovative and pioneering work. This applicant also qualified as a reviewer for several international scientific journals. It was noted in his reference letters that due to his high level of expertise, he was considered one of the best in his field, and consequently was invited on numerous occasions to evaluate manuscripts for publication. We claimed qualification in 3 components of the category: publications, contributions and judge of others work.
We won this case following a response to a Request for Evidence. Service requested further clarification on the "permanency" of the job offer, which was with a University. We submitted the HR policies/procedures documentation to show that the position was permanent and met the Service requirements. Letters from the HR as well as the Department were submitted to show that the position would continue and that funding was available to support this position. Applicant had over twenty-three years of research experience and as a result had a vast list of notable publications and presentations of her research. We provided documentary evidence to show the significant impact her research had on the field. She had an extensive list of noteworthy academic awards and fellowships at very prestigious research universities. We were able to provide expert letters from very prominent institutes in the world that highlighted her work as undoubtedly innovative, pioneering and as having significant impact on the field.
We won a case for a Materials Scientist who had over 11 years of research experience. His expertise was in the field of solar and hydrogen powered energy. We provided documentary evidence to show that his extensive list of publications was in prestigious international journals with high impact factors. We also showed that as a result of his innovative and pioneering work, he was invited to present his findings at a large number of conferences/workshops and symposia. This applicant also qualified under contributions to his field, as he not only published significant work, but also collaborated with many prestigious research institutes around the world. He also received over 5 notable awards with very competitive criteria and was the recipient of numerous grant awards. We were able to provide substantial documentary evidence to show that this applicant published, contributed, received national and international awards of distinction and was called upon as a leading expert to judge the work of others.
We won this case following a response to a Request for Evidence. Service requested further clarification on the "permanency" of the job offer, which was with a University. We submitted an official job offer letter as well as the copies of the university personnel manual and administrative handbook. Service had requested additional evidence to show "international reputation" of the applicant. We submitted various letters from leading experts from around the world that described the outstanding work performed by the applicant and its significant impact on the field. Service also requested further clarification on criteria for the awards received by the applicant as well as the membership qualification for her professional memberships. We submitted documentary evidence outlining the criteria meeting Services' requirements.
We won a case for an Outstanding Researcher who worked for a private company. This applicant provided substantial evidence regarding the company's accomplishments and ability to pay as well as documentation of the 3 full-time researchers on staff. We were also able to provide evidence that the applicant qualified by providing his publications, patented work, membership in a prestigious professional society, extensive presentation listing as well as years of industry experience. This applicant's specialty enabled his employer to provide contemporary services to its clients while also continuing to conduct innovative research critical to the advancement of his field.
We won a case for an Outstanding Researcher with over seven years of research experience. This applicant received a multitude of academic awards for his outstanding work. He had an extensive publication record and authored book chapters. He was known world-wide as a leading expert in his field. Upon receipt of an RFE regarding his employment offer, additional supporting evidence was submitted confirming the permanency of his job offer. His case was approved in less than a week from Services' receipt of the response letter to RFE.
We won a case for an Outstanding Researcher and Professor who was known world-wide for his expertise in hotel management. This applicant had over 19 combined years of industry and teaching experience. He was well-known as a remarkable professor. He served on many thesis committees and acted as a judge in numerous forums. This applicant had an extensive publication record and as a result was highly sought after to speak around the world regarding his contemporary research. He published book chapters and also obtained patents for portions of his research. He qualified under the majority of the criteria for the category by providing substantial documentation on publications, contributions, professional memberships, honors/awards, judging of others' work as well as evidence of his research featured in major media.
We won a case for an Alien of Extraordinary Ability who qualified in numerous components of the category. We argued her contributions were significant as clearly documented by the multitude of reference letters supplied by leading experts in her field. She also had an extensive publication list as well as invitations to present this extraordinary work. Her research has had a significant impact in the field, and consequently the citation record of her work is far greater than most scientists with her years of educational and work experience. As a result of her international reputation, she was also asked to act as a judge of the work of her peers. She was involved in numerous collaborations. This applicant was also featured in such major media as The New York Times and Science Daily.
We won a case following a Request for Evidence for a scientist considered extraordinary in his field. This Ph.D. was an internationally renowned scientist who is acclaimed and respected in the international research community for his expertise in the area of corneal innate immunity and microbial keratitis. His unique specialty set him apart from others in the field. He was invited to review for a high impact scientific journal. He also had an extensive publication list as well as presentations world-wide for his innovative and pioneering work. This applicant served as a reviewer for over 5 journals and also served on the editorial board of two prestigious journals. We also argued in our response to the RFE that this applicant's extensive contributions to the field were beyond the normal scope of a researcher with his years of educational and work experience.