To prepare a legally robust immigration recommendation letter for Wang Min, I need to tailor the content to the specific statutory and regulatory standards that apply. Please provide the following details so I can draft a precise, admissible, and persuasive letter without inventing facts:
1) Jurisdiction and immigration benefit sought
- Country: e.g., United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, etc.
- Case type: e.g., U.S. EB‑1A (extraordinary ability), EB‑2 NIW (national interest waiver), O‑1 (extraordinary ability), H‑1B support, PERM-based EB‑2/EB‑3, I‑601 hardship waiver, N‑400 naturalization (good moral character), asylum corroboration, cancellation of removal, UK Global Talent, Canada Express Entry, etc.
- Addressee: e.g., USCIS Nebraska/Texas Service Center; EOIR; IRCC; Home Office; or “To Whom It May Concern.”
2) Recommender’s identity and qualifications
- Full name, position/title, employer/affiliation, field of expertise, highest degree, key credentials, and contact information.
- Basis of authority to opine: e.g., recognized expert in the field; supervisory capacity; independent evaluator; professional licensure; academic appointments.
3) Relationship to Wang Min
- Nature of relationship (supervisor, collaborator, independent expert), duration, frequency of interaction.
- Whether the recommender is independent (no prior coauthorship/employment relationship), if relevant (particularly important for EB‑1A/NIW/O‑1).
4) Wang Min’s field and contributions
- Field/subfield and proposed endeavor (if applicable).
- Concrete, verifiable achievements: publications (number, venues, citation counts, h‑index), patents (numbers, jurisdictions, citations/licensing), grants (amounts, roles), awards/prizes (selectivity, prestige), invited talks/keynotes, leadership roles, judging/peer review, memberships (especially selective ones), media coverage, commercial impact (revenues, users, deployments), policy impact, standards contributions, clinical outcomes, or other objective metrics.
- For employment-based categories: evidence of original contributions of major significance; leading/critical roles; high remuneration; etc.
- For good moral character or waiver contexts: community service, rehabilitation, hardship factors, ties, and any mitigating evidence.
5) Procedural posture and timeline
- Filing posture (initial filing, RFE/NOID response, appeal/motion).
- Deadline and any page/formatting constraints.
- Whether you prefer explicit citation to statutes/regulations/case law in the recommendation letter itself (note: counsel briefs typically carry most legal argumentation, but I can incorporate concise legal standards if desired).
Once I have these details, I will draft a recommendation letter that:
- Aligns facts to the controlling standards (e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) and Kazarian v. USCIS for EB‑1A; Matter of Dhanasar for EB‑2 NIW; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o) for O‑1; 8 U.S.C. § 1427 and 8 C.F.R. § 316 for N‑400 good moral character; or the relevant provisions for other jurisdictions).
- Uses evidentiary language consistent with the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard (see Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)).
- Avoids conclusory assertions, anchors claims to verifiable evidence, and complies with best practices for admissibility and probative value.
If you prefer not to share specifics yet, I can provide a compliant template with bracketed placeholders tailored to your target category.
