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.
Immigration.com Sample Cases
EB1 – Outstanding Researcher – Seed Technology/Plant Science
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 were retained to assist a single US Citizen woman to adopt a child from India. Due to India’s rigid regulations pertaining to who is eligible to become an adoptive parent of an Indian orphan, our client was initially worried this dream would never come to fruition. She had received very discouraging advice from several sources. Nevertheless, within about one year’s time after we started working, the process is completed. Both immigration related petitions (I-800/I-800a) were approved within a few weeks after submission. There were several intervening issues throughout the process, however, working with our client’s State Department approved Adoption Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State we were able to resolve all such matters. With all intercountry formalities completed as required by the Hague Convention, our client and her daughter are now happily together in the United States.
We have just received another H-1 approval for an end-client placement. There were two intervening vendors and the end-client declined to provide a letter stating that there is no requirement in law for them to provide any such letter. We had to get together convincing secondary evidence. I was highly doubtful we will get the approval, but we did. So, despite the January 8 memo from USCIS, there is life yet for consulting industry.
We were recently retained at the I-140 Appeal stage for an I-140 denied on grounds of fraud/willful misrepresentation. USCIS denied the I-140 citing inconsistencies between the ETA 9089 job requirements, the advertisements, and a subsequent letter sent by petitioner with an RFE pertaining to the job requirements. Due to what USCIS termed as "material inconsistencies," the I-140 was denied on the grounds that the labor certification submitted was gained through fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Further, USCIS claimed the Petitioner/Beneficiary had no right to an appeal. We felt that the allegations were very serious and could lead to reprecussions for the company. A detailed discussion of the the incorrect legal and factual assumptions made by USCIS led to a reversal of the decision and reinstement of the labor certification and approval of the I-140. This was a good way to start the new year for our clients and us. :-)
We were recently retained by an employer whose employee fell out of status due to an omissions by the former counsel. Prior to the employee’s H1B expiration date, the employer tried to file an H1B extension. The employer’s former Counsel utilized an obsolete and inappropriate wage source when filing the LCA. This wage amount was also not representative of what the employee was earning. As a result, the employer had to withdraw the LCA. This circumstance resulted in an untimely filing of the employer’s H1B application and the employee’s status expiring due to no fault of his own. Nonetheless, we were able to obtain H1B approval for the employee in six business days. The approval was given nunc pro tunc.
We were recently retained by an employer who had received very poor legal advice and representation from two different lawyers because of which their employee and her children fell out of H-1 status AND were unlawfully present in USA since 2004. It appeared almost impossible that we will be able to get her back into status after a gap of over FIVE years, but it did work out. Today, we have received H-1 approval as well as the coveted I-94 for all family members. Comments from the client are here: http://www.immigration.com/guestbook/h-1-visa/guestbook-entry-bruce-a-tr...
We were retained by a corporate client to process several E-3 petitions for nationals of Australia. All of the visas were issued at the Australian consulates without any problem. One applicant has already entered the U.S is currently working on E-3 status. We have also submitted a petition for an E-3 amendment with USCIS, which was also approved without any issues.
We were asked to also provide an opinion on the E-3 possibility for a Stage actor and teacher of dramatics. That case appeared to be a bit difficult because it was not clear that the job required a degree. Nevertheless, after that matter was clarified, that E-3 visa was also approved.
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.