First file:
File date 140: NOV 02 2022
Date: RFE: JAN 5 2023
RFE response date: MAR 1 2023
140 pass date: AUG 25 2023
Center: Nebraska
File from outside the US
Lawyer: Porter (Stanley Cheng)
Offer type: full refund
Field: Neurosurgery
Number of articles: 17
Citation: 343
Number and type of embroidery: without embroidery
Other points of the resume: Many referees, but I had letters for 2 of them.
General description of the case and experiences: In RFE, the main thing that stuck the officer was not having a job offer. In response to the RFE, the lawyer said to get two people who wrote the text of the letter themselves and I took it, and there is no need for a job offer because it is not needed in NIW, and we remind the officer of this point, but it was rejected again.
Second filing:
File date 140: OCT 13 2023
Date of Appro 140: JAN 12 2023
Center: Texas
File from outside the US
Lawyer: Porter (Stanley Cheng)
Offer type: full refund
Field: Neurosurgery
Number of articles: 28
Citation: 446
Number and type of tapes: There were two tapes left from the previous file
Other points of the resume: many referees and this time I got letters for 10 of them
General description of the case and experiences: In general, it was very easy to file with this group. But considering that it was rejected the first time and I had high citations, I think the lawyer could have done a better job. I emailed both Chen and Porter Group to evaluate the documents and they both offered me a full refund. In this group, because I had read that filing with Poster is faster, I chose Porter. Another mistake I made was that both groups correspond with you during the document evaluation stage by one of the most senior lawyers, but when signing a contract, they choose another lawyer for you, which I did not pay attention to, but it was very important and I could get more information from the lawyer assigned to me by doing a little research and then sign the contract or ask for a better lawyer.
Even though filing did not take much time and energy, but especially in the first file, I was annoyed by the late response of the lawyer, but after the RFE, another censorious lawyer from the same company was added to my case, and I told my complaint about this issue, and so on until the end. They answer me immediately. The addition of a senior lawyer did not help in the first case, and even though we mentioned the legal issues to the officer and we also prepared two re-coms without additional costs, my first case was rejected.
For the second file, they told me that protesting the first file is much longer than filing again, and it is better to file again, and this time we will address the address of another office so that the petition will go to Texas. Or give this option to return the money in full, of course, without the money I paid for filing. I also agreed to file and we filed with the same previous documents and my new articles. They did not charge me any fees for re-filing, they said that we will pay the postage and USCIS fee for re-filing.
#Form_140
#Aperval
#rfe