Thanks, I appreciate your promptness, involvement, and judgement in preparing my petition.

On January 30, 2013, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates received another EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) Approval for a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Field of Bioengineering in only 22 days.

General Field: Bioengineering
Position at the Time of Case Filing: Postdoctoral Fellow
National Origin: India
Service Center: Texas
Processing Time: 22 days

To preface, it is important to note that National Interest Waiver applications are required to demonstrate several criteria in order to be approved. Although these criteria are often met, without the correct presentation of this evidence in a manner in accordance with the demands of the USCIS, these cases commonly get denied. With this in mind, it is important that each case is handled by experienced professionals in order to offer the best possible chance for approval.

In this particular case, the major challenge presented concerned the number of first-authored publications this client had published. In order to overcome the lack of first author publications and low citations, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates worked directly with this client in order to create the best possible strategy for their case.

With this in consideration, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates drafted six recommendation letters on behalf of experts in several applicable fields. These recommendation letters were then reviewed, edited and signed by these experts indicating the significant influence and impact of this client in the field of bioengineering.

In addition, it was imperative to demonstrate that although this client was not the sole author of many of his publications, his part was substantial, and his work was broad in scope. In order to provide this evidence, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates used analytical software to evidence the importance of this client’s work in enabling small molecule recognition. Furthermore, we cited the high-impact journal ratings this client received and how scientists from around the world were influenced by his work.

Using this proven strategy, while correctly articulating the importance surrounding this client’s valued work, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates were able to secure approval for this petition on January 30, 2013.

With this in consideration, it is important to emphasize that the processes and expertise practiced by Chen Immigration Law Associates. Not only do we develop the best possible strategies for each case, but we execute these strategies with the utmost effectiveness!

Just like this case, YOU can be one of success stories. Chen Immigration Law Associates Currently Maintains An Approval Rating Close to 100%!

Want more information?

View our Client Approvals by Month or All Together! 

View our LinkedIn Recommendations to see what past clients have had to say about us! (Please add info@wegreened.com to your LinkedIn to view the comments)

Send us a Free Evaluation Request (Don’t know what’s necessary for the Evaluation Request? View the Evaluation Request Requirements)

Or please email:  law@wegreened.com

On January 25, 2013, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates received yet another EB-2 NIW(National Interest Waiver) Approval for a Researcher with a Master’s Degree in the field of Child Psychology in 147 days.

General Field: Child Psychology
Position at the Time of Case Filing: Research Assistant
National Origin: Taiwan
Service Center: Nebraska
Processing Time: 147 days

When filing a EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) petition, it is required to document the status and expertise of each client. Traditionally, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates provide examples of advanced degrees and contributions to their field through various sources; however this particular client provided a unique set of challenges. Not only did they not have a Ph.D. at the time of filing, their citation count was relatively low. In order to create a substantial case for this client to continue her work in the field of child psychology, it was important to develop the best possible case for a swift approval.

To start, we highlighted this client’s extensive experience in the field of psychology to balance her lack of credentials. In order to do this, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates drafted seven recommendation letters on behalf of experts in the field, to review, edit, and sign. These letters provided significant testimony to the value, merit, and national scope associated with this client’s ongoing research.

Additionally, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates focused on this client’s unique combination of skills and diverse background in understanding Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. With this in mind, we atChen Immigration Law Associates utilized analytical software and our extensive expertise in research, in order to demonstrate both our client’s level of expertise and profound impact on their field of endeavor.

Finally, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates cited relevant AAO (Administrative Appeals Office ) decisions to further document the evidence necessary to gain approval for this client’s NIW petition.

Using this proven strategy, while correctly articulating the importance surrounding this client’s valued work, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates were able to secure approval for this petition on January 25, 2013.

With this in consideration, it is important to emphasize that the processes and expertise practiced by Chen Immigration Law Associates. Not only do we develop the best possible strategies for each case, but we execute these strategies with the utmost effectiveness!

Just like this case, YOU can be one of success stories. Chen Immigration Law Associates Currently Maintains An Approval Rating Close to 100%!

Want more information?

View our Client Approvals by Month or All Together! 

View our LinkedIn Recommendations to see what past clients have had to say about us! (Please add info@wegreened.com to your LinkedIn to view the comments)

Send us a Free Evaluation Request (Don’t know what’s necessary for the Evaluation Request? View the Evaluation Request Requirements)

Or please email:  law@wegreened.com

General Field: Material Science and Mechanical Engineering
Position at the Time of Case Filing: Postdoctoral Fellow
National Origin: Iran
Service Center: Nebraska
Processing Time: 118 days

When filing an EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) case, it is imperative to showcase the intrinsic merit, and national scope of each client’s work. With this in consideration, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates are experienced in how to approach each case to increase the chances for approval.

In this specific case, the client was employed in the field of material science, mechanical engineering and solid mechanics. Although these fields may present a unique and valuable set of skills, this client provided an exceptional challenge as they had only 43 citations and were the first author on only 4 of their 13 total publications.

In order to demonstrate that this client’s work met the criteria necessary to be approved for an EB-2 NIW(National Interest Waiver) petition, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates had to strengthen the credentials of this client through a unique strategy. In order to do this, we drafted seven recommendation letters on behalf of experts in the field that they reviewed, edited, and signed. These recommendation letters provided testimony of the significant impact this client had made to their fields of endeavor.

In addition, in order to document the significance of this client’s work, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates utilized analytical software which evidenced this client’s influence throughout the world in the field of material science and mechanical engineering. We then emphasized the broad scope of this client’s work by citing researchers from China, UK, Italy, France, and other prominent Institutions in the United States who were impacted by this client’s investigation in energy absorption.

Using this proven strategy, while correctly articulating the importance surrounding this client’s valued work, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates were able to secure approval for this petition on January 29, 2013.

With this in consideration, it is important to emphasize that the processes and expertise practiced by Chen Immigration Law Associates. Not only do we develop the best possible strategies for each case, but we execute these strategies with the utmost effectiveness!

Just like this case, YOU can be one of success stories. Chen Immigration Law Associates Currently Maintains An Approval Rating Close to 100%!

Want more information?

View our Client Approvals by Month or All Together! 

View our LinkedIn Recommendations to see what past clients have had to say about us! (Please add info@wegreened.com to your LinkedIn to view the comments)

Send us a Free Evaluation Request (Don’t know what’s necessary for the Evaluation Request? View the Evaluation Request Requirements)

Or please email:  law@wegreened.com

It’s a wonderful experience that I had retained Victoria Chen‘s service for my immigration petition. She provides clear guidance on how to prepare you application package and helps you to take the best strategy to present the best of yourself in immigration petitions (find your shinning points). She’s also very patient and prompt to answer your questions. Her high quality service is charged at a very reasonable price. I highly recommend my friends to retain Victoria’s service for immigration application.

-S. Sun

View this and other recommendations on LinkedIn!

Chen Immigration Law Associates have provided outstanding service in the preparation and filing of my permanent residence petition. I can personally attest to the utmost level of expertise and care they showed throughout all the stages of this complex procedure. I would certainly retain this firm in the future if I needed any legal advice on immigration issues.

 -R. Verardi

View this and other Recommendations on LinkedIn!

wish to share my experience working with the attorney Victoria Chen on EB1b petition. I contacted an attorney to apply for EB1b.
As I looked for alternative opinions on immigration forums, I came across the name of attorney Victoria Chen and was intrigued by the guaranteed approval or full refund back policy. I send her an e-mail with my CV , and after initial review she said she could guarantee EB1b. She had a long teleconference and laid out the plan of action and things that needs to be done before EB1b petition is filed.
I think she gives fair evaluation (from her experience) of one’s chances and identifies deficiencies upfront. She persistently pushes you for remedial actions. She made me obtain letter of support from the senior author of most cited paper (published in 2000), write to several editors of journals in my field for review opportunities and inclusion in the editorial board. She asked me to prepare a detailed research summary and list of potential reference letter writers (how they might know me, their brief bio, and which areas of my interest should his/her letter talk about). Once I provided this information, she drafted 8 letters for me in a short period of time. Letters were very well written and I was impressed by her ability to grasp and describe research and technical terms accurately yet in easily understandable term. Ms. Chen wrote new letters without any hesitation.
After I got all the letters, she drafted about >25-page petition letter (PL), and send it to me for revision. I did not realize it earlier, but she strategically placed content in the letters from different recommendation letter providers that would strongly provide support to each claimed criteria in the PL from multiple sources. She got my approval before submitting the final version of PL. We initially filed EBIb petition as regular process but converted to premium processing after about 2 weeks. The petition got RFE for employment letter and with 2 weeks she replayed, finally approved in four days.
In summary, I had a great experience working with attorney Victoria Chen. She provides a fair assessment of one’s credentials and once she accepts a case she diligently works to put together a petition package that is very competitive. I found her to be very approachable. She typically responds to e-mails within few hours and one can set up a phone conference within 1-2 days. I fully recommend her without any reservations. She will help filing the I-485 with out taking fee.

I am strongly recommend Victoria services for Green card application. If any one looking for attorney, please contact Victoria.

– S. Duggineni

View this and other Recommendations on LinkedIn!

(Including a Case Study of a SAP Independent Contractor)

“Lead or Critical Role” criterion [8 CFR 204.5 (h)(3)(viii)]:  “Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.”

This post marks the beginning of a series of informational articles that will cover each of the ten regulatory criteria through which one must claim and meet at least three of the ten criteria in order to pass the first part of Kazarian analysis in EB-1A immigration proceedings.

As a foreign national wishing to claim the “Lead or Critical Role” criterion, there are several items to consider before compiling evidence in the objective of satisfying this criterion.  Throughout our extensive legal experience and specialized background in U.S. immigration policy analysis, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates have come to view this particular criterion as one of the most complex and inflexible criteria, requiring specific and lengthy evidence in the two-fold and stringent analysis imposed on evidence provided under this criterion.  The relative misinterpretation and perplexity of legalese and plain language surrounding this criterion has led many of our RFE clients to incorrectly claim this criterion in the process of their original filings (both in self-filing cases and cases filed by other attorneys); or conversely, this criterion has led to our leveraging of this criterion for RFE clients or original clients by correctly submitting the necessary qualifying evidence to fulfill this criterion.

Nevertheless, we would like to begin by clearing several misnomers in regards to the plain language requirements of this criterion.  First and foremost, many people (attorneys, clients, and officials alike) do not understand that this criterion only requires one to have played a lead or critical role for distinguished organizations, rather than proving that the petitioner and/or beneficiary played both a lead and critical role for the respective organizations.  This is a common misconception, and can lead one to submit irrelevant and/or non-qualifying evidence in the pursuit to fulfill this criterion.  A discussion distinguishing the two terms will be provided later in the article, but this realization alone can ameliorate difficulties and solve many conceptual problems for petitioners/beneficiaries across all realms of professional endeavors.  Secondly, and in accordance with our experience, the vast majority of individuals believe that one must have been employed directly with the organizations in which they have performed in a lead or critical capacity.  In actuality, this is not true at all, and we have provided a specific case study below as an example of how an independent consultant (not employed by the organizations in question) performed in a critical capacity for several distinguished organizations, thus leading to the fulfillment of this criterion.  Lastly, and albeit pertinent to most of the ten regulatory criterion included in the first part of Kazarian analysis, many individuals do not realize that based on the plurality (i.e. at least two) imposed within the plain language of this criterion (i.e. “organizations or establishments”), the evidence submitted by the petitioner and/or beneficiary must include performances in lead or critical roles for multiple organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.  Failure to realize this plurality element of the respective plain language may lead to the immediate denial or request for evidence in cases where this evidence is either not submitted or not available.  Moreover, there are effectively two guidelines under this criterion that, if followed in compliance, will lead to a favorable decision and satisfaction of this criterion.  They are itemized below and interpreted in a manner which will provide an overview and analysis of the standard of law imposed herein, thereby supplying one with the optimal means of evaluating whether they are able to provide qualifying evidence to fulfill the criterion.

1. Determining whether the organizations or establishments where the petitioner/beneficiary performed in a lead or critical capacity enjoy a distinguished reputation.

According to the USCIS-

“Keep in mind that the relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor.  Rather, the organization or establishment must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation.  Webster’s online dictionary defines distinguished as 1: marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence <distinguished leadership and 2: befitting an eminent person <a distinguished setting.   (See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished).”

In other words, the organizations or establishments used as evidence under this criterion should have some defined and objective marks of distinction in order to qualify under this criterion.  For example, the organization or establishment may be ranked in some prestigious list (e.g. US News & World Report’s Best Business Schools rankings – http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/mba-rankings), received recognized awards for their products or services, made visible contributions to the international/national field within the respective realm of professional influence, or have evidence of large revenues based on their products or services.

Therefore, it may be helpful to evaluate these organizations or establishments similar to how the USCIS evaluates petitioners or beneficiaries in EB-1 proceedings through criteria-based analysis.  For instance, if the organizations or establishments have similar evidence of nationally-acclaimed awards, major media coverage, and original contributions of major significance (i.e. patents, licenses, inventions, trademarks, etc.), among other evidence required by the EB-1 regulatory criteria, the organizations or establishments would qualify as ones with distinguished reputations.  Specific examples of organizations/establishments that have qualified in the past include but are certainly not limited to- Harvard Medical School (of Harvard University), IBM, Universal Music Group, Merck, Colgate-Palmolive, Ericsson, McCain Foods, Capcom, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).  Nevertheless, the inescapable notoriety of these organizations and establishments through their achievements in their respective fields coupled with their large revenues and/or scope of influences, invariably qualify these and other organizations/establishments of similar repute, as qualifying organizations/establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation.

Finally, one may note that the majority of the organizations/establishments specifically mentioned above are known by name alone internationally.  While this is not a bar to eligibility, it is generally accepted that with the less namesake recognition an organization/establishment holds, comes the expectation of more evidence in regards to objective and defined reputation of the distinction accompanying the organization or establishment in question.

2. Determining whether the petitioner/beneficiary performed in a lead or critical role for the respective organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.

After, and only after, determining that the organizations or establishments in question enjoy a distinguished reputation, it is valuable to weigh the lead or critical nature of one’s role in these particular organizations or establishments.

According to the USCIS-

“In evaluating such evidence, you must examine the role the alien was hired or appointed to fill for the organization or establishment and determine whether that role is (or was) “leading” or “critical.”  The evidence must establish that the alien has been a leader or has somehow contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment’s activities.  A supporting role may be considered “critical” if the alien’s performance in the role is (or was) important in that way.  It is not the title of the alien’s role, but rather the alien’s performance in the role that determines whether the role is leading or critical.  In addition, a key question may be whether the alien’s role was leading or critical to the organization as a whole.”

The most important takeaway from the preceding statements is the purported inquisition of whether or not the petitioner or beneficiary’s role was leading or critical to the organization as a whole.  While this statement may appear relatively ambiguous, it is intentionally vague in order to permit a wide array of claims to the matter in terms of providing evidence of one’s impact on the organization at-large, rather than one department, division, or sub-committee.  In order to distinguish this statement with the objective of providing optimal interpretation herewith, we have separated the discussions of lead and critical into two sections below, also abiding by and stimulating the realization of satisfying either the lead or critical role requirements imposed under this criterion.

(A) LEAD ROLE

Demonstrating one’s lead role for an organization or establishment requires one to prove both leadership and directing capacities in the performance of employment-based duties, whether in contractor or permanent employment settings.  In other words, the USCIS has suggested and directly implied that this situation requires one to show evidence of their service in a Director or Executive-level position for large organizations.  Therefore, one’s service as a senior manager may not qualify as lead, simply because there are many more ‘leaders’ and/or ‘directors’ above them, whom are expected to perform in a much higher lead role.  On the other hand, if one is an independent contractor who advises said leaders at the Director or Executive-level, one’s performance may qualify as lead and perhaps even critical as well.  Specifically, and aligned with the overarching context of documenting one’s rise to the top of the field of endeavor, one must prove that their ‘lead role’ is one that leads/directs the company at-large, or at minimum, leads/directs a department, division, or sub-committee within the organization/establishment, in such a manner that the role/position stands to impact the organization as a whole due to the intrinsic importance of the sub-entity to the organization at-large.  For example, it is commonly accepted that one’s position as the Vice President or Director of Engineering, whether regionally or internationally, would stand to impact the organization as a whole by way of leading/impacting the institutional directives as they pertain to engineering.  Extending this line of logic to all divisions of an organization/establishment, the failure of any department, sub-committee, or division, would certainly stand to detrimentally impact an organization as a whole if it were not led/directed.

(B) CRITICAL ROLE

Furthermore, as opposed to the seemingly clear-cut implications of demonstrating one’s lead role for an organization/establishment, proving one’s critical role for an organization/establishment becomes even more complex and stringent.  Without a title or position clearly defining and/or documenting one’s importance to the organization/establishment as a whole, one must provide evidence to demonstrating that their contributions to the organization/establishment has substantially impacted the organization at-large via cultural, educational, economical, or reputational advances.  Though the ambiguity presented by these requirements is apparent, this non-specificity may in fact allow many more individuals to claim such criticality or vitality to their respective organizations/establishments.  In other words, the possibilities of claims to contributions impacting the organization/establishment as a whole are effectually endless.  For example, one could claim anything from developing the curriculum used in a department within an institution which serves to educationally-benefit an institution as a whole to acquiring a patent for a process or product which serves to financially-benefit a privately-held manufacturer.  Nonetheless, the most important element in evaluating and measuring one’s critical role is the degree of influence derived from the respective contribution(s) provided by the individual to the organization as whole.  If one contributes to the organization in a manner which is merely expected or conducive to routine job responsibilities, such as implementing/advancing an internal process or procedure, the role may not be viewed as critical by the USCIS, unless there exists some overwhelming evidence of the processes’ important financial implications (i.e. process implementations that saved the business millions of dollars or a large fiscal figure relative to the overall expenditures of the organization).  Likewise, if one is a research and development engineer, and they develop a patented technology for the organization/establishment, the role may or may not be deemed as ‘critical’ depending on the relative measurement of financial/cultural impact derived from contribution.

Case Study:  Independent Contractor – Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations

One of our past approved cases filed by Chen Immigration Law Associates involved an independent SAP contractor who specialized in SRM (supplier relations management) modules of SAP software.  The organizations in this case – as is the case for many independent contractors based on the nature of independent consulting – were clearly recognized as distinguished organizations, and were comprised of international technology, food, and non-durable manufacturing conglomerates.  Therein, the basis of the evaluation and argumentative claims originated within the secondary determinations of whether or not the petitioner/beneficiary performed in a lead or critical role for the respective organizations.  Since the petitioner/beneficiary was an independent consultant, we decided it was best to claim that they performed in a critical role for the distinguished organizations.  We based these claims on evidence that the contractor adapted SAP software for the organizations to substantially advance their supplier relations and supply chain processes, which resulted in significant fiscal savings through improved software applications that would not only allow for increased monitoring and documentation of supply chain systems, but would also expedite payments and shipments to and from their suppliers and customers and vice versa.  By specifically delineating the business process improvements provided by the contractor’s contributions, we were able to show the overall impact they had on the organizations at-large, thereby leading to the swift approval of this criterion and the petition as a whole for the client.

At Chen Immigration Law Associates, we recognize that understanding breeds confidence, and that confidence in turn leads to favorable action, which invariably results in favorable consequence.  This is not to say that the information contained within this article is infallible, but rather suggests that with this additional knowledge, individuals in all pursuits and motives will be better suited to qualifying evidence leading to a more favorable adjudication of their immigration proceeding.  Thus, before attempting to claim this criterion, like any other criterion, one must consider the comprehensive and detailed standards of law.  Consulting an attorney will aid one’s understanding of whether or not they, in totality and actuality, meet this criterion.  All cases are different, and the USCIS has set up each criterion for the flexible interpretation of all parties.  Therefore, while it is always illogical to completely disregard evidence, proper consideration and consultation is the optimal means of determining which criterions to argue in the petition package.

http://www.plus.google.com/chenimmigrationlawassociates

(Including a Case Study of a Graphic Designer)

“High Salary” criterion [8 CFR 204.5 (h)(3)(ix)]:  “Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field.”

As a foreign national wishing to claim the “High Salary” criterion, there are several items to consider prior to compiling appropriate evidence in the objective of satisfying this criterion.  Throughout our extensive legal experience and specialized background in U.S. immigration policy analysis, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates have come to view this particular criterion as one of the easiest criterions to claim when the specific evidence required is both available and qualifying.  In other words, and no matter the origination of evidence, in order to claim this criterion, one must submit evidence of salary/remuneration receipts in the form of official government tax returns (i.e. Form W-2s, Form 1099s, or the foreign equivalent of such).  Regardless of whether this evidence is either unavailable or not applicable, it is very difficult to satisfy this criterion without such evidence, since offer letters, or other official statements documenting one’s high salary do not necessarily demonstrate that the petitioner/beneficiary actually received the salary presented in the claimed criterion.

Moreover, due to the separate plain language references used in this regulatory criterion, namely ‘salary’ as opposed to ‘remunerations,’ it is important to define these terms and note that they are effectively interchangeable and do not by any means indicate that one’s wages in the form of benefits (i.e. tuition reimbursements, healthcare/medical allotments, profit-sharing incentives, stock options, 401(k) contributions, etc.), regardless of their basis on performance, ever qualify as part of one’s salary or remunerations.  This is due to the nature of these benefits, since they are relatively viewed as routine, and in some instances are indeed required by law, and are likewise rarely included in individual tax returns. Bonuses on the other hand, albeit depending on the actual receipt of said wages and the inclusion of such in tax returns, may qualify as part of one’s compensation, only if they are included in the total wages section of the individual’s tax returns.  In fact, according to the Merriam-Webster® dictionary (the definition-database used by the USCIS in connotative regulatory contexts)-

“Definition of SALARY

:  fixed compensation paid regularly for services…

Definition of REMUNERATION

:  something that remunerates : RECOMPENSE, PAY…

Related to REMUNERATION

Synonyms:  compensation, disbursement, giving, paying, remitment, remittance, payment.”

Therefore, by definition, any payment for one’s services, whether in the form of salary, wages, commission, or bonuses, may be considered in the regulatory evaluation under this criterion; however, one must note the comparative implications imposed if one does claim anything other than base salary.  In other words, if one submits evidence in the form of one’s base salary, then field, geographic, and position-based statistics must be provided specific to the base salary of others in the mutual field of classification; in layman’s terms, you must compare ‘apples to apples’ and ‘oranges to oranges,’ and failure to do so may result in the immediate denial or request for additional evidence in the case by the USCIS. As such, it may or may not be valuable to claim one’s total cash compensation (i.e. base + variable pay) in submission of evidence under this criterion. Nevertheless, if one does have evidence of their salary/remuneration in the form of official government tax returns, either domestic or foreign, the next step in determining eligibility under this criterion involves a comprehensive analysis of the salary’s or remunerations’ height in relation to others in the field.

In accordance with the overarching context of Kazarian analysis in determining whether or not one has risen to the top of their field of endeavor, and according to the USCIS-

“Evidence regarding whether the alien’s compensation is high relative to that of others working in the field may take many forms.  If the petitioner is claiming to meet this criterion, then the burden is on the petitioner to provide appropriate evidence.  Examples may include, but are not limited to, geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys and organizational justifications to pay above the compensation data.  Three websites that may be helpful in evaluating the evidence provided by the petitioner are:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm

The Department of Labor’s Career One Stop website: http://www.careeronestop.org/SalariesBenefits/Sal_default.aspx

The Department of Labor’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification Online Wage Library: http://www.flcdatacenter.com.”

Herewith, it is important to note that not only is it the responsibility of the petitioner/beneficiary to submit evidence of one’s salary/remunerations received in the form of governmental tax returns, but the petitioner/beneficiary is also responsible for submitting relevant wage data and surveys showing that the salary/remunerations claimed are considered ‘high’ in relation to others in the mutual field, relative geographic (local/regional/national), and similar position/title.  In addition to those databases provided above, other qualifying sources of salary/wage data that provide free statistical outputs include Salary.com and Payscale.com.  Others such as Vault.com and Kenexa’s Companalyst.com provide comparative salary figures via paid subscription services.  Salary surveys, albeit to some degree more difficult to obtain, may provide position-specific wage data that will be valuable in determining and/or demonstrating the relative height of one’s salary.  Ultimately, and regardless of the comparative data sources employed in the analytical determination of one’s salary being high in relation to others in the field, it is critical to ensure that the salary is well-above the 90th percentile of comparable wage data.  This is due to the necessary and implicative realization that the plain language requires one’s salary/remunerations to be significantly higher than others in the field of endeavor, thereby enabling the secondary and contextual evaluation of one’s rise to the ‘small percentage at the top of the field of endeavor.’

Case Study:  Graphic Designer – High Salary in Relation to others in the Field

One of our past approved cases filed by Chen Immigration Law Associates involved a Graphic Designer who had evidence of a high salary of approximately $90,000.  Therein, we provided the following databases to show the individual’s high salary in relation to other graphic designers in the field:  (1) The Bureau of Labor Statistics; (2) The Department of Labor’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification Online Wage Library; (3) Salary.com; and (4) Payscale.com.  For each of these databases, we highlighted the 90th percentile figures (Level 4 Wage for the Foreign Labor Certification database) which were substantially lower than the graphic designer’s salary, and where applicable/available, provided geographic-specific data for the individual’s position relative to others within the employment-based locality.

At Chen Immigration Law Associates, we recognize that understanding breeds confidence, and that confidence in turn leads to favorable action, which invariably results in favorable consequence.  This is not to say that the information contained within this article is infallible, but rather suggests that with this additional knowledge, individuals in all pursuits and motives will be better suited to qualifying evidence leading to a more favorable adjudication of their immigration proceeding.  Thus, before attempting to claim this criterion, like any other criterion, one must consider the comprehensive and detailed standards of law.  Consulting an attorney will aid one’s understanding of whether or not they, in totality and actuality, meet this criterion.  All cases are different, and the USCIS has set up each criterion for the flexible interpretation of all parties.  Therefore, while it is always illogical to completely disregard evidence, proper consideration and consultation is the optimal means of determining which criterions to argue in the petition package.

http://www.plus.google.com/chenimmigrationlawassociates

The EB2-NIW application seems easy, and you probably could DIY by yourself. However, you have to spend a lot of time on this.

Therefore, I was happy to hire Victoria Chen for my I-140 application. She not only helped to write the petition letter, but also wrote 6 good letters. With her help, it only took me two months to prepare materials and file the I-140.

I highly recommend her film. As a result, the every penny I spent on the application is worthy.

– S. Ku

View this and other Recommendations on LinkedIn!

After consulting several different lawyers including local ones, I decided to retain Victoria Chen for my NIW petition due to her guaranteed approval policy and very reasonable fees. She definitely delivered the result that she promised. My NIW petition was approved without RFE. The whole process was as painless and smooth as it could be. There were absolutely no communication problems although her firm is located in a different state. I highly recommend Victoria Chen to anyone who is considering to file an NIW petition.

– I. Waluyo

View this and other Recommendations on LinkedIn!