DOES:

DON’TS:

Letters establishing that the

researcher’s work has had a measurable

influence on the field of expertise by

mentioning the researcher’s specific

contributions

Letters referring to the researcher’s

work in general terms without

providing specific examples of the

researcher’s contributions to the field

will not be given much weight

Letters referring to the researcher’s past

record of achievements as a way of

projection of the future benefit to the

U.S.

Letters alluding mostly to the future

benefit of the work will only hurt the

petition

Letters demonstrating that the

researcher’s work has had an influence

on the field beyond his/her immediate

projects.

Letters discussing the petitioner’s

ongoing research projects without

demonstrating the petitioner’s influence

on the larger field beyond the

institutions where the petitioner has

worked.

Letters that only demonstrate the

benefit to the researcher’s employer

will not show the national impact of the

researcher’s work

Letters submitted with the petition

should include expert opinions of

independent researchers who came to

know the petitioner through his/her

reputation and contributions to the field

Letters submitted with the petition that

include only the testimonies of the

petitioner’s past or present

collaborators will not be given much

weight

Letters from independent experts that

do not explain how the experts came to

know the petitioner’s work

Letters demonstrating that independent

researchers have cited, used or

otherwise relied upon the petitioner’s

findings.

Letters coming from experts at the top

of the petitioner’s field that are specific

about the petitioner’s place in the field

and that stress the impact of the

petitioner’s discoveries.

Letters from independent experts that

merely praise the petitioner’s work

without providing specific details about

the petitioner’s accomplishments

Letters discussing the petitioner’s

patents that emphasize the significance

of the innovations to the field and

commercial usage of the patents

Letters referring to the petitioner’s

patents without discussing how

important the petitioner’s innovations

are to his/her field of expertise or

without a reference to whether the

patents have already been used

Letters demonstrating that the

petitioner’s research accomplishments

are so unusual that he/she stands out

from the rest of his/her peers; cannot be

replaced by any other similarly

qualified scientist; and thus he/she

merits the benefit of a national interest

waiver.

Letters that merely state that the

petitioner is a well-qualified scientist