Case Summary:  

Our client, a Research Assistant Professor in Public Health from China, develops evidence and prediction tools that enable health systems to act earlier on chronic disease risk and measure whether policy changes reduce disparities. Her work brings together health equity analysis, machine learning, and clinical prediction modeling, with direct relevance to how care is delivered and how resources are allocated.

Research Output and Independent Recognition

To support the petition’s “outstanding researcher” positioning, NAILG documented a sustained record of publication and field influence. At the time of filing, the client had authored 16 peer-reviewed scientific articles and 15 abstracts, with publications appearing in selective, widely recognized venues in diabetes and health equity.

The record also presented objective indicators of influence. The client’s work had been cited 96 times, and several papers were performing well above field averages for their publication years, including multiple articles documented as ranking among the top 10% most cited in their category and year.

Professional Trust Signals

Beyond publication and citation, the record documented professional standing through peer review and editorial service. The client had completed at least 37 peer reviews for respected journals and served as an editorial board member for two journals. These roles were presented as key indicators of trust in the field: journals and publishers rely on recognized experts to evaluate the validity and significance of new research, and repeated invitations to review reflect sustained professional credibility.

One expert summarized the real-world utility of this work in terms that resonated with public health decision-making:

“Her work is important for individuals with diabetes and heart failure as well as for resource allocation and public health planning.”

RFE and Response Approach

USCIS issued a Request for Evidence on November 4th, 2025. Notably, the RFE did not challenge the client’s original research contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, or peer-review service. Instead, it focused on EB-1B procedural requirements that can become decisive even when the research merits are strong: proof of at least three years of qualifying research experience, validity of the qualifying job offer, and the ability to pay the proffered wage.

NAILG responded with a compliance-first strategy designed to remove ambiguity quickly and keep the adjudicator’s attention on the merits. The response provided updated experience documentation with specific dates, duties, and institutional verification, including letters confirming research activities and employment continuity. It also supplied university policy and handbook excerpts clarifying appointment categories and assistantship roles, along with updated job-offer confirmation materials. For the ability-to-pay issue, the response relied on objective wage and institutional financial documentation, including proof of payment and university financial statements.

The Result

The approval reflects a record that remained strong on the merits while also addressing each documentation point raised in the RFE with clear, targeted evidence. NAILG appreciated the opportunity to support this case and looks forward to the client’s continued contributions to prevention-focused public health research, predictive modeling, and health equity outcomes.