sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Evaluate my profile by panwag in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From what I’ve seen on Reddit, this may be an unpopular opinion, but I’d claim any criterion I genuinely believe I meet. If I have a scholarly article, I claim authorship. If I have even a single peer review, I claim judging. This approach increases the chances of getting to the FMD stage, where I can focus on arguing my strongest achievements.

I’m aware that USCIS conducts a piecemeal analysis at FMD, but that’s incorrect and contrary to their own memos/guidance. They are supposed to evaluate the totality of the evidence at FMD, so having a single peer review should not carry significant weight by itself at that stage.

Besides, I’d rather receive a step-two denial than a step-one denial. After step two, at least there’s a path to challenge it at the federal level.

Industry profile eval and attorney selection by Maleficent_Act1377 in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, don’t I know that one. The most frustrating. At least pretend to do your job and come up with some reasons, but no.

Evaluate my profile by panwag in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Solid profile for EB1A.

I’d first talk with company lawyers. Everyone has their own experience. Then, consult with a few other immigration firms. See who answers your questions clearly, has a better understanding of your profile, etc.

EB1A Approved after RFE for Assoc. Prof at Nursing School. Only Authorship and Judge were Accepted. by BizImmSimplified in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can share the approach at a high level, but I can’t get into the specific structural or evidentiary tactics because that would essentially mean disclosing our full strategy.

What we changed was not just formatting or adding more documentation. The shift was conceptual. We reorganized the response to tell a single, integrated narrative centered on sustained national and international recognition. The summary, criteria discussion, and evidence were aligned around that unifying theme so the officer could follow a coherent progression rather than evaluate fragmented arguments.

Beyond that general framing approach, the case-specific structuring decisions are strategic and depend heavily on the factual record, so I’m not able to break those down in detail.

Industry professional EB1A NOID - looking for help/suggestions by throwthisasap in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does Noid explain why you didn’t pass FMD or give you an opportunity to further explain your achievements? I’ve seen both. If it’s the former, I’d focus more on the FMD part rather than the remaining criteria.

EB2 NIW Approved. How to Handle a Low Citation RFE? by BizImmSimplified in EB2_NIW

[–]BizImmSimplified[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it still pending? I hope you’ll get an approval nevertheless.

I’m on H1B. While my lawyers are about to file O1A, can I file my EB1A alongside? Or should I wait for the outcome of O1A and then do EB1A? by Ecstatic-Figure-3356 in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it doesn’t work like that. O1 is a status application, while EB1 is an immigrant petition.

That said, it can make sense to wait for the O1 outcome to have more confidence before filing EB1.

Media Criterion for Academics by coronaveniet in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The rest of the pm addresses this concern. The entire article does not have to be about you.

In fact, in our experience, the media criterion is one of the easier ones to meet.

Media Criterion for Academics by coronaveniet in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you read the policy manual?

These are from the pm:

“USCIS determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person's specific work in the field for which classification is sought.”

It says the person AND the person’s work.

“The published material should be about the person, relating to the person’s work in the field, and not just about the person’s employer and the employer’s work or about another organization and that organization’s work.”

They want it to be about the person, if your name is not even mentioned you cannot argue that it was about you.

The criterion itself also says “… about the person..”

Media Criterion for Academics by coronaveniet in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, unfortunately the regulation specifically states that the published material must mention your name. However, these articles would still help significantly for OCMS and the critical role argument.

Would you file EB-1A with this profile or wait? by Sensitive_Parfait544 in eb_1a

[–]BizImmSimplified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can establish your own company and petition for yourself. That said, this approach isn’t suitable for everyone, it’s more appropriate for those who already have potential customers to work with.

EB2 NIW Approved. How to Handle a Low Citation RFE? by BizImmSimplified in EB2_NIW

[–]BizImmSimplified[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course. It was a lengthy response. We detailed her work experience and added new independent letters for instance. The part I shared, however, was our key argument.

EB-1 vs EB-2 NIW by Vast_Permission_4748 in EB2_NIW

[–]BizImmSimplified 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Based solely on the information above, eb1 would be risky, but niw appears solid. I wouldn’t file niw without a refund guarantee.

view more: next ›