In April 2013, we filed an EB1A petition with premium processing for a bioinorganic chemist specializing in rare-earth chemistry. With a focus toward improving hazardous waste disposal techniques and creating innovative renewable energy solutions, this client had authored 23 publications and accumulated 240 citations. To supplement his petition, we drafted ten letters of recommendation which discussed his credentials, achievements, and the importance of his work in great detail. We were able to claim three of the regulatory criteria for this client: 1) judge of the work of others, 2) original contributions of major significance, and 3) authorship of scholarly articles. We also included details about how he would continue his work in the field and substantially benefit prospectively the United States.

 

10 days after filing the petition with premium processing, the client received a Request for Evidence (RFE) from a notoriously difficult immigration officer who imposed a much higher standard than most officers. While the RFE noted that the client had satisfied the criteria for judging and authorship, it challenged whether the client’s original contributions were majorly significant in his field. However, the RFE also reflected that the submitted evidence was not carefully reviewed by the officer. For instance, despite the fact that 7 of the 10 letters submitted were from independent recommenders who did not know the client and had never worked with him, the RFE said that “Many of the letters of support were from individuals who already knew you.” In response, we provided new letters from each of these recommenders reaffirming their independence to make sure it was clear to the officer. Despite the client’s 240 citations, the RFE also incorrectly said that his citation record did not show that his work had made a significant impact or had been widely implemented. In response, we provided the client’s independent citation record, showing 239 independent citations, as well as additional evidence that his citation record was indeed very high compared to most researchers in his field. We further submitted a number of AAO decisions showing that individuals with far fewer citations had been shown to satisfy this criterion. These decisions demonstrated that the AAO had consistently held that a high number of citations were good evidence of the major significance of one’s work.

 

We were able to fully respond to each of the concerns raised in the RFE within one month. Nevertheless, the immigration officer denied the petition. In the denial notice, the officer mainly focused on the client’s citations and letters of recommendation. With regard to the client’s citation record, the officer said that the 239 independent citations were “notable” but not necessarily a major significant contribution. However, the officer did not address the evidence we submitted – including AAO decisions – that proved that such a record of citation was indeed majorly significant in the client’s field. The officer also quoted from two of the letters alluding to the “potential impact” of the client’s research to imply that his work had not yet been majorly significant. Yet the officer failed to take note of the numerous assertions from these independent experts explaining how his work had already had a significant impact on his field.

 

Because the denial notice clearly indicated that the officer had not properly considered the evidence submitted, we chose to appeal the decision to the AAO. In our appeal brief, we explained that the officer had chosen to inappropriately ignore the evidence that would prove that the client’s contributions were majorly significant, and that the client’s evidence was therefore misrepresented in the denial notice. We filed the appeal by the end of May 2013. Appeals are supposed to be reviewed by the adjudicating officer within 45 days and then, if the officer decides not to change his decision, forwarded on to the AAO, where the processing time is an additional 6 months. However, when we still had not received a decision 8 months after filing the appeal, we raised a service request with USCIS to determine the status of the appeal. In doing so, we learned that the officer who denied the case had never forwarded the appeal to the AAO, so the 6 month processing time had not yet begun, and the client’s appeal would be further delayed.

 

As this was a clear handling error by USCIS and the immigration officer reviewing the petition, we filed a request for the AAO to expedite the appeal. In our request, we explained that the processing delays were solely the fault of USCIS, and as such the client’s appeal should be given priority. The AAO granted the request and immediately assigned the case to an appeals officer. Shortly thereafter, we received notice from the AAO that the decision was being overturned and the client’s petition would be approved. While the repeated errors by this immigration officer and USCIS resulted in the case taking 16 months to be approved, we were able to obtain the approval by remaining persistent in emphasizing the client’s impressive credentials. After hearing the news that his petition had finally been approved, the client had the following to say:

 

“I saw the e-mail and your update that my I-140 was approved from AAO office; we were so excited after confirming from you. […] Whenever I was frustrated with this case updates, I used to give e-mail to you, and your team always encouraged us with reply mail. My communication with Chen Immigration Team was very pleasant. My case was handled very efficiently from start to end.”

 

Appeal Approval

 

North America Immigration Law Group (Chen Immigration Law Associates) is a U.S. immigration law firm dedicated to representing corporations, research institutions, and individuals from all 50 U.S. states regarding I-140 immigration petitions. We specialize in employment-based immigration petition and have a proven record of high success rate for the categories of: EB2-NIW (National Interest Waiver), EB1-A (Alien of Extraordinary Ability), EB1-B (Outstanding Researcher/Professor) and O-1 (Alien of Extraordinary Ability).

Our Ten Thousand I-140 Approvals Provide Unprecedented Insight into the USCIS Adjudication Trend

With more than 16,000 EB-1A, EB-1B, EB-2 NIW and O-1 cases approved, we have first hand information on the manner in which the USCIS adjudicate I-140 cases. As the USCIS has constantly changed its adjudication standards for the EB-1A, EB-1B and EB-2 NIW categories, our firm's huge database of successful cases gives you unprecedented insight to USCIS adjudication trends. We carefully analyze the data for all of our cases and apply the results of our analyses toward giving our clients up-to-date advice and adapting our strategies such that we remain on par with the ever-shifting landscape of immigration law in the U.S. With us, you will always have access to important updates, strategies, and information so that you can make the most informed decisions about your case.

We Have Helped Hundreds and Thousands of Clients with Credentials and Backgrounds Similar to Yours

With our exceedingly large number of successful petitions, no matter what credentials you have, no matter your background and field of expertise, no matter your visa status or nationality, chances are we have helped hundreds or even thousands of clients just like you. Our clients are usually impressed with how well we understand their research and work. Our insight and understanding stems from the fact that we have handled many cases with elements similar to yours already, and this helps us devise the best strategies for each individual petition.

Vast Majority of Clients Came to Us Because of Referrals

For years, our firm has attracted new clients based solely on word of mouth, recommendations, and the positive collaboration experiences shared with them by their friends and family. We take pride in our reputation and work hard to ensure that we provide a green card application experience that our clients are happy to share with their friends and colleagues. That is how our approved cases grew from 600 in 2013 to over 3,500 in 2019.

---

To see more clients’ testimonials and approvals, please refer to:

Client's Testimonials

Approval Notices

To Learn More About Your Options CLICK HERE

---

Copyright © North America Immigration Law Group – WeGreened.com, All Rights Reserved.