We won this case by submitting evidence of this applicant's substantial publication record as well as numerous recommendation letters which outlined the innovative work performed by the applicant. In addition, referees described the applicant as "one of the best in the field" for his significant discoveries in the biological chemistry industry. The applicant was employed with a very prestigious research institute which only hires the top scientists in the world.
We won this case for an applicant with over sixteen years research experience. She had a substantial publication record. Her expertise was sought for a collaboration with top researchers from the industry. Her contributions to research and academics and her significant international recognition were described in detail in the ten exceptional recommendation letters.
We were able to provide evidence of this individual's membership in a prestigious professional society, international honors and numerous letters of recommendation from industries leading scientists. This individual acted as a judge of the work of his research peers. We were able to provide 15 letters of recommendation reflecting the innovative work performed by this applicant. We also provided evidence to show the extensive citations of his findings.
My wife's EAD expired last month and she stopped working till today. She applied renewal in December, 2003. We waited till 90 days is complete and went to local USCIS office on 3/22/2003. It is a walk in. The lady in reception verified the I-765 receipt. After making sure that 90 days have lapsed. She asked us to fill some paper work and wait in the adjoining hall. The office called her and collected her Driver's License and expired EAD. After verification he returned Driver's License and asked her to get her picture taken in the next room.
I would like to provide my personal experience at the Columbus, Ohio office. It was a frustrating experience like any other government office experience.We went there at 7.45 AM. We submitted the application forms and the EAD renewal notices, which the security submitted inside to the USCIS (BCIS ) officers. We were walk-in applicants for interim EADs. It seems that the Columbus office prioritizes "all" the people who have prior appointments before the walk-ins. Therefore, our turn did not come until 12-12.30 PM.
Applied for EAD in first week of Jan (paper filing) and because of some issue with I got the application back on 26th sent again on 27th received by NSC on 28.. I got the receipt with the RD of 28 and ND of 30th ... My current EAD was expiring on Mar 12. I was waiting and checking the status every day, but when it did not got approved till like 2nd or 3rd march. I started talking with my attorney; I also talked with Rajiv and my company's attorney.
Thank you for having the best web site on immigration and for taking action to improve the processing times.
My wife and I visited the Hartford office on 4th March 2004 to get an Interim EAD issued. We filed for an extension on November12 th 2003 and as of the visit date it was still not approved.
Total processing time was about 3 hours. Interim EAD was issued for 2 months.
Went to Newark for Interim EAD recently and got in line early at 6am. Got into office at 8am went to 2nd floor, and then got the iEAD appl. With i765 receipt was soon sent to 13th floor ( room #1300 )here they check your papers, i485 receipt, i-140 etc... ( basis for EAD )then sent to room# 1304 here your photo & FP will be done got the iEAD card around 10.30am
5:15 AM Reached at 970 Broad Street(Found 12-15 people there already)
7:35 They let us in and gave a slip. Slip was basically asking to go to 2nd floor Romm # 200.
7:40 Reached 2nd floor Room # 200.
Was asked to be in a line by the wall (there were 2 lines, Line by the wall was for EAD only)
First of all, Kudos for the excellent Service provided by you. I took all the feedback from your site & went to USCIS office in San Jose, CA to get an INTERIM EAD Today. Everything went well & I was given an Interim EAD for 10 Months..
We won this case based on the applicant's critical role in a key U.S. Air Force project. His level of expertise in this specialized field was highly sought after and necessary to achieve the military's objectives. We provided letters from experts in the Air Force stressing their need to keep the applicant on the project or else it would fail.
We won this case for a tenured-track professor with ten years research and teaching experience. The applicant was a critical component to a U.S. Department of Energy funded project. The applicant was also the key element to securing National Science Foundation funds for his employer. His vast knowledge of inorganic chemistry and his unique multidisciplinary background was proven throughout his numerous recommendation letters offered by experts around the world.
We won this case for the applicant who is considered a leading expert in international affairs, particularly Indo-Chinese relations. We utilized eight detailed recommendation letters which highlighted the importance of this applicant's vast knowledge on China and his outstanding expertise on nonproliferation and security affairs. He had over twenty publications on this critical topic at the time of filing.
We won this case stressing the international scope of the extraordinary work that this applicant had done over the course of many years. He was identified by experts around the world as belonging to the top 5% of scientists in his field. His innovative and pioneering work was admired by his research peers around the globe. Many U.S. educational institutes were seeking his services as a research professor. This applicant was "invited" to present his research findings on countless occasions to an audience of the top researchers in the world.
We won this case by providing evidence of the impact of the work this applicant was conducting in her field. Numerous referees provided detailed recommendation letters outlining the necessity for the continued efforts of this applicant. Her teaching capabilities were noted as being far superior to others in her field. This applicant's unique background was shown to be scarce in the United States.
We won this case by providing strong recommendation letters and evidence of U.S. government support of this applicant's innovative research. His previous scholarly publications and impressive presentations were just a few key elements to his unique background. The FAA in particular was interested in the creative talents of this applicant.
We won this case for the applicant who had eleven years teaching and research experience. Recommendation letters indicated that the applicant had a superb knowledge of not only theory but also economic technique. The applicant was highly regarded by students, peers and experts in the field. He was frequently called upon to review for the top, world-renowned journals in economics.
We won this case for the applicant utilizing nine strong recommendation letters from sources around the world which included field experts as well as industry.
We won this case for an applicant with over thirteen years research and teaching experience. His extraordinary talents and unique background as well as his vast knowledge in econometrics was shown by use of over six detailed recommendation letters. This applicant had an extensive publication record and was frequently asked to present at international conferences.