Response-to-RFE: Approval in Five Days for a Self-petitioned NIW
Like other law firms, our office has also filed a substantial number of EB1 and EB2 cases prior to September 30, 2005, as part of our push to file eligible cases before EB11 and EB2 retrogression was to go into effect. In the meanwhile, we also handled RFEs on behalf of some self-petitioned Do-It-Yourself (DIY) clients. Happily, most cases were approved within a couple of months.
Our firm received an NIW approval remarkable for its speed. The beneficiary filed the NIW on September 29, 2005. The RFE arrived on October 20, 2005. We filed the response on January 11, 2006, and received the NIW approval on January 16, 2006. The substance of the case follows. It is an example of the types of proof and the arguments that have helped the law office obtain approvals in NIW cases for many of our clients
The client seeks our help to handle his RFE. After reviewing the RFE and documents initially submitted by the beneficiary to support his NIW petition, we concluded that this case is similar to a number of RFEs we have handled on behalf of our DIY clients. Namely, the case was not properly presented to the USCIS because the applicant did not properly address the third prong of the NIW. First, the petition did not compare the beneficiary with his peers; second, it did not emphasize the beneficiary’s research contributions and their significance enough. Third, some of the recommendation letters undermined the case. Moreover, this particular client has conducted important research in China, which was not emphasized in the petition.
Background
The client received his Ph. D in biology from a medical university in China. While in China, the client ‘s research projects were funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. He is a recipient of the Shanghai Medical Science and Technology Progress Award. Nine publications were authored by this individual, published in both nationally and internationally circulated journals. This client is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology. Finally, the genomic sequences authored by the beneficiary were collected in GenBank.
Field of Research
The client, a postdoctoral research scientist in Georgia, is conducting pioneering studies about the mechanism of persistent virus infection. Medical research generally can be shown to be in the national interest. This individual’s research is of substantial benefit to the health of U.S. citizens and to the U.S. economy, as evidenced by research funding through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Disadvantages
It was only month since the original submission. Except for one new article, the beneficiary was unable to provide further proof of qualifications for the NIW. All available documents were already submitted.
Our Response
We decided to argue that the beneficiary satisfies the third prong of the NIW, based on the submitted documents. To do so, we helped the client draft six additional expert opinion letters, to establish that our client’s research makes a profound scientific contribution. To establish the significance of this research, we argued that our client made a groundbreaking discovery that explains the mechanism of persistent virus infection. As part of our efforts to prove the client’s prior demonstrable research achievements, we provided an expert opinion letter from the client’s Ph.D advisor, showing that he has made important contributions in research projects funded by Chinese government.
The RFE specifically requests evidence of extensive and frequent citations of the beneficiary’s research. Instead of providing the number of time that the beneficiary’s papers were cited, we discussed in depth the novel findings the beneficiary has made in these published papers, which contributed to the high level of citations. In addition, we discussed the significance of the genbanks that collected genes authored by the client.
The NIW was approved five days after the RFE was submitted.