Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, P.C.
5225 Wilson Blvd
Arlington, VA 22205 USA Ph: (703) 908-4800
Arlington, VA 22205 USA Ph: (703) 908-4800
6 Byers Street
Staunton, VA 24401 USA Ph: (540) 886-6321
Staunton, VA 24401 USA Ph: (540) 886-6321
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 filed a petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on her extraordinary engineering contributions. Her substantial and highly scientific contributions paved the way for commercial manufacturing of flexible displays by major, well-known display manufacturing companies. The beneficiary’s commercialized research was featured on Amazon.com. She had over eight years of research experience in the nanotechnology field resulting in multiple patents. We also provided documentary evidence of the beneficiary’s research publications in prestigious scientific journals as well as the lengthy citation record of these articles. The beneficiary was employed with a private employer therefore we submitted documentation of the petitioner’s R&D staff to show at least 3 full time researchers. We also provided documentary evidence to show the accomplishments of the employer as well as their ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, which included a letter from the CFO, the beneficiary’s tax return, W-2, and recent pay stubs. The petition was aproved without an RFE.
We filed a petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on his original contributions, publication record, featured research work in the media and service as a judge of the works of his research peers. USCIS seems to have accepted the veracity of our claim for outstanding ability without a question. We were issued a request for evidence asking only for proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay. We supplied the most recent financial report of the petitioner, a letter from the CFO as well as copies of the beneficiaries W2 and most recent pay stubs. The case was approved within a week.
We filed an EB-1, Outstanding Researcher petition premium processing for the beneficiary who qualified based on her extraordinary contributions in applied sciences. Her substantial and highly innovative contributions paved the way for commercial manufacturing of flexible displays by major, well-known display manufacturing companies. The beneficiary’s commercialized research was well documented. She has over eight years of research experience in the nanotechnology field producing a multitude of patents. We also provided documentary evidence of the beneficiary’s research publications in prestigious scientific journals as well as the lengthy citation record of these articles. What was unusual about this case was that the beneficiary did not have a PhD, which is the norm for many, if not most EB-1 cases.
We have received two interesting B-2 extensions. It has been my view that under certain circumstances B-2 can and should be permitted by USCIS to be used even where the applicant has an immigrant intent or is otherwise staying longer than usual in USA. Apparently, USCIS agrees.
In the first case, we were preparing an EB-5 (One Million Dollar investment) for an applicant who was here on a B-2 visa. So, we disclosed fully to the government that we have immigrant intent, but should not be required to leave because we are in the process of investing. A forced visit back to home country serves no useful purpose. USCIS approved the case.
In the second case, we have just received a third B-2 extension for the parent of a green card holder. The applicant suffers from chronic ailments and needs to be monitored. Both his sons live in USA (H-1 and green card). Once again, USCIS approved the case.
EB1 – Outstanding Researcher – Seed Technology/Plant Science
This week, we filed an I-140 petition premium processing and received an approval within 24 hours. The applicant had over thirteen years’ research experience, some of which was while working for a world-renowned company known for its innovative work in seed technology. We were able to provide substantial documentary evidence of the applicant’s original contributions that began as early has his Ph.D. years. The applicant had published some very significant articles that changed the course of research for many of his peers. Thus, his publications were cited heavily in top scientific journals with high impact factors. We were also able to supply copies of articles featuring the applicant and his work. The applicant had also been invited to participate on a national advisory board for a prominent society due to his reputation in the scientific community. Reference letters from leading experts clearly defined this applicant as one of the very top scientists in this unique specialty. The 24-hour turn around was a very pleasant surprise indeed.
We have recently won a case for a physician working in several rural clinics as well as his private practice within a medically underserved area. We were retained following a denial of the I-140 petition for NIW. We filed an appeal as well as an amended (new) I-140 application to show that the physician had met the 5-year service requirements for an NIW. The applicant had moved from one medically underserved area to another while the original I-140 was pending. The issue was whether an “amendment” could have been filed in this case to notify USCIS of the move without an approved I-140. USCIS issued a request for evidence, but acknowledged the applicant’s prior medical service and credited him the time towards his 5-year requirement. Upon receipt of the request for evidence we responded with additional documentation to show the relationship between the physician (medical service provider) and the rural clinics (contractor). We supplied attestation letters from each of the contractors as well as an affidavit from the applicant indicating a commitment to complete his 5-years of medical service in the underserved area. In order to show “full-time” employment, we provided documentation that described the combined service at each rural clinic as well as time spent with patients at his private practice, which more than met the 40-hour requirement. We also offered a letter from the previous employer to document prior medical service.
We have recently won a case following a Request for Evidence for a professor - Ph.D. in Mass Media and Communication. USCIS requested additional “documentary evidence” to support our claim that the applicant qualified under the EB1 Outstanding Researcher and Professor category based on applicant’s publications, acting as a judge of her peers as well as her original contributions. Based on the international reputation the applicant gained as a result of her involvement in the field of mass media, we were able to provide documentation, which included printouts from various news sources as well as extensive web coverage of her work. We also provided additional letters from editors that unequivocally identified the applicant as one of the eminent scholars in her field. Additionally, we provided evidence of the significance of the publications where the applicant’s work had been featured, that included the impact factor, circulation, ranking and historical data. The case was approved within four days of receipt of the response to the Request for Evidence.
We have recently won a case for an applicant who worked as a clinical dental professor and a researcher. The case was won following a Request for Evidence. We showed that the applicant qualified based on his international awards and honors and his highly regarded professional memberships. We provided substantial documentation to show the stringent criteria to obtain such honors.
We won a case for an applicant who worked not only as a clinical dental professor but also as a researcher. The case was won following a Request for Evidence. We showed that the applicant qualified based on his international awards and honors and his highly regarded professional memberships. We provided substantial documentation to show the stringent criteria to obtain such honors. Based on the overwhelming amount of documentary evidence to support the claim that the applicant qualified under professional memberships as well as noteworthy honors and awards, the application was approved shortly after submission of the response to the Request for Evidence.
We won an EB-1 Outstanding Researcher case for an applicant with a Ph.D. in Experimental Chemical Physics filing under Premium Processing. The case was decided within two days of submission. The applicant had over eleven years of research experience and an abundance of publications as a result of his extensive list of original findings. As a result of the multitude of publications in prestigious, international scientific journals, the applicant’s work was also extensively cited. We provided copies of the articles along with the data regarding the significance of the journals, which included printouts from Google Scholar and the ISI master journal list. We provided documentary evidence on each of the journals to show the reputation in the field. We also provided copies of the cited work, highlighting the citations as well as the reference section. As a result of the extensive publication list, we were also able to provide documentary evidence to reflect the significance of his “original” scientific contributions to the field.
We have won a case for a Ph.D. in Immunology for EB1, Outstanding Researcher following an elaborate Request for Evidence. The applicant had extensive research experience in the following areas: Pathology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Immunology. USCIS requested additional documentary evidence to support the initial evidence that the applicant qualified based on his acting as judge of others’ work, numerous publications with accompanying citations as well as substantial evidence of “original” scientific contributions. We offered additional supporting documents that included letters from prominent military officials noting requests for applicant to review proposals, elaborate details on the significance and impact of the journals where the applicant’s research work had been published as well as documentary evidence to support the international reputation the applicant had gained as reflected by the multitude of citations in prominent scientific journals in his field. We provided evidence to confirm that the applicant’s ongoing noteworthy research was based on his “original” scientific contributions and that his work had a significant impact on the overall health and well-being of not only the U.S. military personnel but also the citizens of the country.