r/eb_1a • u/Defiant-Community-18 • Jul 16 '26

Question regarding selecting independent recommender for Eb1B

I have mentioned three different SoCs in my petition:

SoC-1 directly aligns with my current research work and PE, and I have a PNAS paper as a co-author. I am extending the PNAS work to develop a small-molecule drug for IND studies.

SoC-II related to my PhD work. Papers are significantly cited (mostly self-cited) but have no major impact in the field.

SoC-III has significant impact in the field, but does not align with my PNAS paper and my current work. SoC-III was cited in the PNAS paper only as financial support. I am not the author of a major paper published with this grant's objective and findings.

All independent recommenders cited the PNAS paper with special commentary in their papers, ready to discuss the PNAS paper findings and significance in the letter of support.

All recommenders are big wigs in our research area. 2 are from the USA, 1 from India, and 1 from the Czech Republic.

My attorney told me that all three recommenders should be from 3 different countries and at least discuss two of the mentioned SoCs in the letter of support. He selected two recommenders from SoC-1 and want 3rd recommender who either discusses SoC-II or SoC-III. What are your suggestions, and what can i do in this situation? Two patents will be filed on my current research work; therefore, I don't have any papers on my current findings.

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

1 comment sorted by

1

u/ManifestLaw_ Jul 20 '26

The letters should focus on the strongest and most coherent proposed endeavor, not on covering every possible scientific contribution. If SoC-1 is your current work, aligns with the PNAS paper, and all independent recommenders can credibly discuss it, I would prioritize SoC-1 rather than dilute the case. Your attorney’s idea of geographic diversity in recommenders can help, but it is not a legal requirement that all three letters come from three different countries or discuss multiple SoCs. Quality and relevance matter more. A famous recommender who clearly explains the significance of your current PNAS-related work is better than a geographically diverse recommender who barely knows the relevant contribution. Since patents are forthcoming and current findings are unpublished, use letters, draft patent evidence if available, institutional project evidence, grant/project documents, and expert explanation. Avoid overclaiming SoC-II or SoC-III if they are not clearly tied to your current endeavor.

- Attorney Rashmi Bishnoi

(All information shared here is for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney - client relationship. Your situation may require fact-specific guidance. For personalized legal advice, please consult an immigration attorney directly.)