Extraordinary and Outstanding: What’s Changed Under New CIS Guidelines H. Ronald Klasko, Esq. Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP NAFSA Conference Michele Stelljes The Methodist Hospital & Methodist Hospital Research Institute

What has changed? Kazarian v. USCIS Revision to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (12/22/2010) RFE template (1-11) – Extraordinary ability 2-step analysis – objective and subjective Recognition of “preponderance of evidence” standard

What are the 2 steps in the analysis? 1 st Step – producing 2 (outstanding professor/researcher) or 3 (extraordinary ability) types of evidence  Objective test  Can produce “comparable evidence” for EA

What are the 2 steps in the analysis? 2 nd Step – recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field (OR)  Academic field larger than very small area of specialization Sustained national or international acclaim; one of that small percentage who has risen to the top of the field (EA)  Subjective test?  Can be young in career (cont’d)

1) Receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor General  Not local or regional  Primary purpose to recognize excellence  Must relate to beneficiary field

1) Receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor Specific  Criteria used  National or international recognition of prize or awards  Reputation of granting institution  Geographic scope of candidates  Number awarded per year (cont’d)

1) Receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor  Previous winners  Not limited to students or early career professionals  Any public announcement? (cont’d)

2) Membership in Associations  Association requires outstanding achievements  Criteria for membership  Outstanding achievements were basis for granting membership  Not just years of experience  Judged by recognized experts  Related to beneficiary’s field

3) Published Material about the beneficiary  Published in professional publications (or major media for EA)  Circulation statistics  Must be about beneficiary and his/her work in specific field  Not just about PI or institution  Footnote reference without evaluation insufficient

4) Judge of the work of others  Individually or on a panel  e.g., Ph.D. dissertation committee  Same or related field  Invitation not sufficient

5) Original contributions (of major significance for EA)  Citations of beneficiary’s work as authoritative  “widespread” public commentary or “widely” cited  Work implemented by others  Licensed technology  “significant” patents

5) Original contributions (of major significance for EA)  Reference letters  Detailed, not general  How contributions are of major significance  Impact on subsequent work  How contribution was “original”  Impact factor of journals (cont’d)

6) Authorship of Scholarly Article  Show author, title and journal – not entire article  Must be “scholarly”  Written for “learned” persons in given field

6) Authorship of Scholarly Article  Must be published in professional publications or major media  Circulation statistics  Impact factor  Must be international circulation for OR (cont’d)

7) Performance in a “leading or critical role” (EA only)  Title and duties  Contributions of significant importance to institution  Distinguished reputation of institution

8) High remuneration in relation to others in the field (EA only)  Compensation surveys by geography and position  DOL sources  Prevailing wage alone not sufficient

9) Comparable evidence (EA only)  Show why other criteria not applicable to occupation  Prove “comparable”

Referees and reference letters  How many?  Choosing referees  Independent and impartial  Prestigious institutions  Good CV  Geographically diverse  One per institution  International for OR

Referees and reference letters  Content of letter  About beneficiary, not about referee  Attach referee’s CV  About beneficiary’s work, not about beneficiary  Not peer review  Remember the audience  Emphasize “new,” “original,” “different,” “first,” “important”  Detailed, not general (cont’d)

For Further Information H. Ronald Klasko, Esq. Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP PHILADELPHIA 1800 JFK Blvd., 17 th Floor Philadelphia, PA ; NEW YORK 317 Madison Ave., Suite 1518 New York, NY ; Michele Stelljes HR Immigration Specialist The Methodist Hospital & Methodist Hospital Research Institute 8100 Greenbriar, Suite GB 1-62 Human Resources Houston, TX (832) ;