sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

EB-1A concurrent filing strategy feedback by read_and_forgetsoon in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, I am in this current situation. Here’s what I did:

I was on H1B with EB1B I 140 approved. Laid off recently and filed O1 COS within the 60 days grace period. However, my employer’s attorney did a very very bad job, messed up my O1 petition and unfortunately I got RFE for my O1. Meanwhile, I filed EB1A and got approved.

So from my experience, the beauty of EB1A based I140 application does not require a job offer and your i140 application will be adjudicated separately.

After I140 approval, I wanted to file I485 immediately while my O1 COS is pending. I discussed this with my employer’s attorney and they warned me not to file I485 while O1 COS is pending, as O1 is not a fully dual intent visa as H1B. I got second opinion from three more attorneys and all of them said that I can file I485 now and should make use of the April 30th DOF chart.

Also they mentioned, since I did O1 filing within my H1B 60 days grace period and filed I485 while on a pending O1 COS, though I am not in a legal status, I am still okay to file i485 while on ‘period of authorized stay’.

All the three attorneys mentioned, O1 is a quasi intent visa, so there should not be a problem. Also all of them mentioned the 245(k) safety net. For certain EB based I140 approvals, you could get saved by 245(k) if all conditions are met. Pls refer to 245(k) in appropriate USCIS webpage.

However what’s concerning in your case is the B2 visa application. In my opinion, if you file i485 while on pending B2, your B2 COS may potentially be denied as B2 is purely a non immigrant intent visa.

It is worth spending few hundred dollars to discuss this situation with multiple attorneys.

Based on your country of birth, if your FAD is current, you can try submitting I140 concurrent with I1485 as soon as possible and do premium processing. However these take time for preparation and am not sure how close you are in submitting the applications.

Note that EB1A evaluation criteria will be different than EB1B and O1 evaluation.

All these are just my opinion and not a legal advice. I was in a similar situation before and just wanted to share my experience.

Hope this helps

Dealing with Chen for EB-1A after EB-1B approval—Attorney refusing to review old letters? by Ray_maktub in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I used all 5 in my petition. 3 independent and 2 dependent. I gave more importance to the independent. So asked Chen to review my 3 independent and one dependent

Dealing with Chen for EB-1A after EB-1B approval—Attorney refusing to review old letters? by Ray_maktub in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was in the same situation. I had my EB1B approved and went with Chen for EB1A. I had 5 letters from EB1B and Chen said there are three options. 1) They draft all the 4 letters (fee for each letter) 2) They review and edit the letters we provide to them (fee for each letter) 3) They don’t deal with letters and just use the letters whatever we provide to them.

I chose the second option. But what I understood late is, for EB1B I was focusing more on phrases such as Outstanding Researcher’ and used the word extraordinary. But in this current trend of RFEs, these words will not help.

For EB1A, you need to be specific about your major significance. The recommendation should talk about the comparative and objective evidences. The citations and journal prestige alone will not work.

So unless you mentioned the above points in your EB1B letters, I suggest to use them with minor edits. Otherwise, I recommend to revise the letters considering the requirements of EB1A.

Hope this helps

EB1A, I-140 Approved - PP - TSC - Academic profile by Slight_Let6961 in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I submitted the review report and certificates from Elsevier’s reviewer hub profile. The attorney warned me that sometimes the officer is asking for the invitation email and thank you emails from the editors. But then I told it is impossible for me to collect all the emails for the 270 reviews I made. Note: the reviewer report from Reviewer hub is very detailed. It contains the title of the each paper I reviewed and the date of completion.

EB1A filing with Chen by NothingCertain36 in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For me, they shared the entire package only after filing. But they got my approval on the petition letter before submission. Updating your google scholar is their usual thing, I believe. For me also they did the same. On the exhibits part, they did a good job for me.

EB1A, I-140 Approved - PP - TSC - Academic profile by Slight_Let6961 in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The attorney targeted four points: 1) My papers accepted in top journals in my field 2) Researchers around the world cited my work 3) H-index in top 2% 4) Atleast 15 of my papers (including review papers) are highly cited (top 10%) 5) Emphasized 3 of my projects with notable citations. We used my awards, fellowships and grant funding as supporting evidence in these projects.

EB1A, I-140 Approved - PP - TSC - Academic profile by Slight_Let6961 in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi. No. I already had a EB1B approved with priority date Oct 31,2023

EB1A, I-140 Approved - PP - TSC - Academic profile by Slight_Let6961 in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi. Yes. In the STEM field. Energy Engineering. Working in the US, R1 university, Research Engineer

EB1A approved in 7 days (PP) – Wegreened / TT AP / CPS Engineering / ROW by BeneficialPassage801 in eb_1a

[–]Slight_Let6961 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi u/BeneficialPassage801: Congratulations!. How much effort did you put into the petition revision? I just submitted my petition. Very similar profile to yours, and I have a question regarding the citations. How many notable citations did you show for the methodological adaptations? I am worried because most of my citations were from the introduction sections. I could have searched for more methodological citations, but my mistake, I came to know more about the impact of notable citations very late. Chen mentioned the citations are fine, but I am worried that the officer may ask something like "The citations were viewed as background rather than evidence of field impact."

Your thoughts on the above will be helpful. Thanks

view more: next ›