Key Issues in EB-1A Application - 乔治华盛顿大学社区

EB-1A is the first preference employment based green card application. The best advantages for this classification are 1) the applicant does not require the employer's sponsor, in other words, the applicant can apply for EB-1A for him/herself directly with the USCIS; and 2) no visa quota for this classification, in other words, the applicant can submit his green card application at any time.

The Scientists in the University normally would like to claim that they are qualified the judging criterion because scientist will make peer reviewing works as their routine works. However, participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. Reviewing or editing the works of others is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers and scientists. Normally a journal's editorial staff or a conference technical committee, for example, will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. The publication's editorial staff or the technical committee may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish, present, or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets her apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of publications or conferences, served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal or publication, or chaired a technical committee for a reputable conference, the applicant has not established that he/she is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.

Another criterion that scientist would like to claim is the scholarly articles criterion which requires the applicant to submit the articles he/she has published. The statute requires the applicant to submit "extensive documentation" of his/her sustained national or international acclaim. As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientists and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of her articles is an important indicator to determine the impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Applicant would provide solid evidence that his/her work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by her work. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the Petitioner may indicate that her work has gone largely unnoticed by her field. In this case, the applicant offered evidence that her article in has been cited 60 times, but she did not show that her other three articles, as well as her conference abstracts, have been cited by others. Although the article shows some interest in the Applicant's work, she did not establish that such article citation is sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field

Another criterion usually claimed by scientist is the evidence of receipt of the awards. However, experienced experts generally do not compete for scholarships or fellowships, and academic awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation fall substantially short of demonstrating the required acclaim.