近期Eb-1A/B批准案例选辑 （二）

 

刘宗坤律师按：在此，我们整理了一部分本所近期获得批准并具有代表性的Eb-1A/B案例，以供读者参考。以下案例大多在近几个月中获得批准，基本上能够反映Eb-1A/B审理的现状。

以下案例由刘宗坤联合律师事务所Susan Covington整理。

************************************************************************
Case # 9: Dr. N. Y.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Computer Science
Major Credentials:
PhD from an American university
Published 9 journal and conference papers
Approximately 290 citations
Served as a peer-reviewer for journals and conferences

Dr. N. Y. researches and publishes in the field of computer science. Her area of expertise is wireless sensor network. She earned her PhD from an American university. As of Dr. N. Y.’s filing date she had published 9 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited at least 290 times. In addition, Dr. N. Y. had served as a peer reviewer for a number of journals and conferences.

In support of Dr. N. Y.’s petition, we submitted four strong letters of recommendation, including 2 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. N. Y. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove (1) that Dr. N. Y. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to her field of endeavor; (2) that she had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in her field; (3) that she had frequently been called upon to serve as a judge of the work of others. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. N. Y. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of her field.

Dr. N. Y.’s case was filed on March 15, 2007, and was approved on August 28, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 10: Dr. X. B.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Chemistry
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 26 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers
Cited approximately 270 times
Received national award from a foreign government

Dr. X. B. researches and publishes in the field of Chemistry. His area of expertise is organic chemistry. He earned his PhD from a Chinese university. As of Dr. X. B.’s filing date, he had published 26 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited more than 270 times by researchers around the world. In addition, he had received a national scientific award from the Chinese Education Ministry.

In support of Dr. X. B.’s petition, we submitted 6 strong letters of recommendation, including 2 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. X. B. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. X. B. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; and (3) that he had received prestigious national award for excellence in research. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. X. B. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. X. B.’s petition was filed on February 14, 2007, and was approved on August 23, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case #11: Dr. B. Z.

Case Type: Eb-1B
Field of Research: Materials Science
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 8 peer-reviewed journal papers
Served as a peer reviewer
Job Position: Research Associate

Dr. B. Z. researches and publishes in the field of Materials Science. His area of expertise is polymer nanomaterials engineering. He earned his PhD from a Chinese university. As of Dr. B. Z.’s filing date, he had published 8 peer-reviewed journal papers. His papers were cited moderately by other researchers. Dr. B. Z. was offered a position of Research Associate in an American university.

In support of Dr. B. Z.’s petition, we submitted 6 strong letters of recommendation, including 5 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. B. Z. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Outstanding Researcher. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least two of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. B. Z. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; and (3) that he had participated as a judge of the work of others. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. B. Z. was an outstanding researcher with international acclaims in his field.

In addition, we provided evidence to show that Dr. B. Z. had at least three years of outstanding research experience in his field, and that the position offered to him had no fixed term, in which he would ordinarily had an expectation of permanent employment.

Dr. B. Z.’s case was filed on January 31, 2007, and was approved on August 15, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 12: Dr. X. H.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Electrical Engineering
Major Credentials:
PhD from an American university
Published 9 peer-reviewed journal and conference articles
Cited approximately 72 times 
Served frequently as a peer reviewer

Dr. X. H. researches and publishes in the field of electrical engineering. Her area of expertise is wireless communications. She earned her PhD in Electrical Engineering from an American university. As of Dr. X. H.’s filing date, she had published 9 first-authored peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited at least 72 times by researchers around the world. She had also frequently called upon to serve as a peer reviewer for journals and conferences.

In support of Dr. X. H.’s petition, we submitted 7 strong recommendation letters, including 4 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. X. H. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that Dr. X. H. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to her field of endeavor; (2) that she had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in her field; and (3) that she had served as a judge of the work of others. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. X. H. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of her field.

Dr. X. H.’s case was filed on May 1, 2007, and was approved on August 7, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 13: Dr. Z. W.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Electrical Engineering
Major Credentials:
PhD from an American university
Published 11 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers
Cited approximately 25 times
Work reported by major professional publications
Served as a peer reviewer

Dr. Z. W. researches and publishes in the field of electrical engineering. His area of expertise is digital communications and data storage.  He earned his PhD from a top American university. As of Dr. Z. W.’s filing date, he had published 11 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited at least 25 times by researchers from all over the world. His work had been reported by a major media outlet. In addition, Dr. Z. W. has repeatedly served as a peer reviewer.

In support of Dr. Z. W.’s petition, we submitted 6 strong letters of recommendation, including 3 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. Z. W. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability.  To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that Dr. Z. W. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; (3) that he had served as a judge of the work of others; and (4) that his work had been reported by major media. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. Z. W. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. Z. W.’s case was filed on April 16, 2007, and was approved on July 20, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 14: Dr. H. Z.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Polymer Science
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 32 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers
Cited approximately 300 times
Recipient of prestigious awards for research excellence

Dr. H. Z. researches and publishes in the field of polymer science. His area of expertise is in polymer chemistry and physics. He earned his PhD in Polymer Chemistry and Physics from a Chinese university. As of Dr. H. Z.’s filing date, he had published 32 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited at least 300 times by researchers worldwide. His work has been reported by major professional journals and he has received nationally recognized awards for excellence in research.

In support of Dr. H. Z.’s petition, we submitted 5 strong letters of recommendation, including 3 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. H. Z. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. H. Z. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; and (3) that he had received prestigious national awards for his excellence in research. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. H. Z. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. H. Z.’s petition was filed on April 19, 2007, and was approved on July 13, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 15: Dr. H. L.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Electrical and Computer Engineering
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 24 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers
Approximately 50 citations
Senior member of a scientific association
Served as a peer-reviewer

Dr. H.L. researches and publishes in the field of electrical and computer engineering. His area of expertise is PCM technology. He earned his PhD from a Taiwanese university. As of Dr. H. L.’s filing date he had published 24 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited at least 50 times. In addition, Dr. H. L. is the co-inventor of a number of US patents, and he is a senior member of an exclusive, invitation-only scientific organization.

In support of Dr. H. L.’s petition, we submitted five strong letters of recommendation, including 2 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. H. L. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. H. L. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; (3) that he had served as a judge of the work of others; and (4) that he was a member of scientific association that requires outstanding achievement. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. H. L. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. H. L.’s case was filed on April 23, 2007, and was approved on July 6, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 16: Dr. G. T.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Particle Physics
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 81 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers
Cited approximately 1,600 times
Work reported and reviewed in professional journals

Dr. G. T. researches and publishes in the field of particle physics. His area of expertise is heavy quark physics. He earned his PhD from a Chinese university. As of Dr. G. T.’s filing date, he had published 81 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited more than 1,600 times by researchers around the world. In addition, his work had been reported and reviewed by major professional journals.

In support of Dr. G. T.’s petition, we submitted 8 strong letters of recommendation. We argued that Dr. G. T. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. G. T. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; and (3) that his work had been reported by major professional and trade media. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. G. T. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. G. T.’s petition was filed on March 6, 2007, and was approved on June 21, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case #17: Dr. A. L.

Case Type: Eb-1B
Field of Research: Nanotechnology
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 22 English and Chinese papers
Cited over 80 times by other researchers
Served as a peer reviewer
Worked reported by a foreign newspaper
Job Position: Senior Research Scientist

Dr. A. L. researches and publishes in the field of Nanotechnology. His area of expertise is the development of nanomaterials. He earned his PhD from a Singapore university. As of Dr. A. L.’s filing date, he had published 22 peer-reviewed journal papers, which had been cited over 80 times by other researchers. Dr. A. L. was offered a position of Senior Research Scientist in a small company.

In support of Dr. A. L.’s petition, we submitted 6 strong letters of recommendation, including 2 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. A. L. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Outstanding Researcher. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least two of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. A. L. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; (3) that he had participated as a judge of the work of others; and (4) his work had been reported in national media. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. A. L. was an outstanding researcher with international acclaims in his field.

In addition, we provided evidence to show that Dr. A. L. had at least three years of outstanding research experience in his field, that the position offered to him had no fixed term, in which he would ordinarily had an expectation of permanent employment, and that the position was offered by a qualified employer who hired at least three full-time researchers.

Dr. A. L.’s case was filed on May 23, 2007 requesting premium processing, and was approved on June 4, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 18: Dr. K. J.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Nanotechnology
Major Credentials:
PhD from an American university
Published 11 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers
Cited approximately 62 times
Served as a peer reviewer

Dr. K. J. researches and publishes in the field of nanotechnology. His area of expertise is in carbon nanomaterials research. He earned his PhD from an American university. As of Dr. K. J.’s filing date, he had published 11 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, which had been cited at least 62 times by researchers around the world. In addition, Dr. K. J. has repeatedly served as a peer reviewer for journals and conferences.

In support of Dr. K. J.’s petition, we submitted 7 strong letters of recommendation, including 3 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. K. J. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. K. J. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; (3) that he had served as a judge of the work of others. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. K. J. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. K. J.’s petition was filed on December 29, 2006, and was approved on June 4, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 19: Dr. L. W.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: Linguistics
Major Credentials:
PhD from an American university
Published 14 scholarly papers
Served as a peer reviewer for journals

Dr. L. W. researches and publishes in the field of linguistics. His area of expertise is sociolinguistics. He earned his PhD in Linguistics from an American university. As of Dr. L. W.’s filing date, he had published 14 scholarly articles in journals and conference proceedings. In addition, Dr. L. W. has served as a peer reviewer for journals.

In support of Dr. L. W.’s petition we submitted 6 strong letters of recommendation, including 4 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. L. W. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. L. W. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; and (3) that he had served as a judge of the work of others. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. L. W. was an outstanding linguist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. L. W.’s petition was filed on January 18, 2007, and was approved on May 17, 2007.

************************************************************************
Case # 20: Dr. Y. H.

Case Type: Eb-1A
Field of Research: neuroscience
Major Credentials:
PhD from a foreign university
Published 25 scholarly journal and conference papers
Worked reviewed by other researchers in journals
Served as a peer reviewer for journals

Dr. Y. H. researches and publishes in the field of neuroscience. His area of expertise is neurobiology. He earned his PhD from a Chinese university. As of Dr. Y. H.’s filing date, he had published 25 scholarly articles in journals and conference proceedings. In addition, Dr. Y. H.’s work has been reviewed by other researchers in professional journals, and he has served as a peer reviewer.

In support of Dr. Y. H.’s petition we submitted 7 strong letters of recommendation, including 5 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. Y. H. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least three of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence that Dr. Y. H. (1) had made original scientific contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor; (2) that he had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in his field; (3) that his work had been frequently reviewed and reported in professional media, and (4) that he had served as a judge of the work of others. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. Y. H. was an outstanding scientist who had risen to the very top of his field.

Dr. Y. H.’s petition was filed on April 11, 2007, and was approved on May 14, 2007.

************************************************************************

Case #21: Dr. T. S.

Case Type: Eb-1B
Field of Research: Molecular Medicine
Major Credentials:
PhD from an American university
Published 11 journal and conference papers
Cited approximately 47 times by other researchers
Job Position: Research Assistant Professor

Dr. T. S. researches and publishes in the field of molecular medicine. Her area of expertise is genetic epidemiology. She earned her PhD in Molecular Medicine from an American university. As of Dr. T. S.’s filing date, she had published 11 journal and conference papers, which had been cited about 47 times by other researchers. Dr. T. S. was offered a position of Research Assistant Professor in an American university.

In support of Dr. T. S.’s petition, we submitted 6 strong letters of recommendation, including 2 independent expert opinions. We argued that Dr. T. S. met the statutory requirements to qualify as an Outstanding Researcher/Professor. To meet this standard, the petitioner must provide evidence of at least two of the required criteria. We offered specific evidence to prove that (1) Dr. T. S. had made original scientific contributions of major significance to her field of endeavor; (2) that she had authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals in her field. We further explained in detail how the specific evidence provided under each criterion had convincingly established that Dr. T. S. was an outstanding scientist with international acclaims in her field.

In addition, we provided evidence to show that Dr. T. S. had at least three years of outstanding research experience in her field, and that the position offered to her had no fixed term, in which she would ordinarily had an expectation of permanent employment.

Dr. T. S.’s case was filed on April 30, 2007 requesting premium processing, and was approved on May 8, 2007.

************************************************************************

刘宗坤律师（Z. Zac Liu, Esq.），法学博士（J.D., Valparaiso University School of Law）、哲学博士(Ph.D., Peking University)，伊利诺伊州最高法院及联邦法院执照，曾担任Valparaiso University Law Review的编辑和审稿人， 著有中英文书籍多种，散见于中美各大学图书馆。执业以来，他已代理无数名来自世界各地的科研人员
和专业人士成功获得绿卡及各类非移民签证，尤其在国家利益豁免（NIW）、特殊人才（Eb-1A）、杰出教授和研究员（EB-1B）、PERM 劳工证、H-1B工作签证等方面积累了丰富的经验。读者若有移民法律问题，可将简历发往zliu@niwus.com。刘律师会在两个工作日内对您的问题做出免费答复或评估。

白凯玲律师 (Kellie Pai, Esq.)，法学博士(J.D.，University of Houston Law Center)、文学学士(B.A., University of Texas at Austin),德克萨斯州最高法院执照，刘宗坤联合律师事务所专业移民律师。

Liu & Associates, PLLC
Wells Fargo Tower, 8th Floor
6161 Savoy Drive, Suite 830
Houston, Texas 77036
Tel： (800) 878-1807
(713) 974-3893
Fax: (866) 608-2766
Email: zliu@niwus.com
Website: www.niwus.com