EB-2 NIW for Russian and Ukrainian Scientists

Documenting credentials from Russian and Ukrainian institutions

Certified translations

Every diploma, degree certificate, and transcript issued in Russian or Ukrainian needs a certified English translation. USCIS does not require a court-certified or notarized translator, but the translator must sign a short statement attesting competence in both languages and the accuracy of the translation. Keep the original-language document and the translation paired as a single PDF exhibit so an officer can line up names, dates, and seals without flipping between files.

Credential evaluation

Because US adjudicators may not be familiar with the accreditation status of a given Russian or Ukrainian university, obtain a course-by-course credential evaluation from a NACES member such as World Education Services (WES) or Educational Credential Evaluators (ECE). Submit certified copies or request the issuing university send transcripts directly if the evaluator requires it. Order the evaluation early — processing for institutions outside standard databases can take longer, and some evaluators request additional documentation when a university has changed its name or status since Soviet times.

Name-variant affidavit

Cyrillic-to-Latin transliteration is not standardized, so the same name can appear as, for example, "Yuliya," "Iuliia," or "Julia" across a diploma, passport, and published papers. Rather than letting an officer guess, include a one-page signed affidavit listing every name variant that appears across the petition's exhibits, the document each variant appears on, and a statement that all variants refer to the same individual. Attach copies of the passport photo page and any prior visa or green card documents showing the same inconsistencies, so the affidavit is self-supporting rather than asserted without evidence.

Assembling evidence of research output under disrupted institutional access

When an institutional email or repository login is no longer accessible, rebuild the publication record from sources that do not depend on that institution at all.

Step 1: Claim or verify independent author profiles

• ORCID (orcid.org): if you have an iD, log in directly (not through institutional SSO) and export your works list as a record you can attach as an exhibit.
• Scopus Author ID: search by name and prior affiliation at scopus.com; note the ID number and screenshot the author page, including the h-index and document count.
• Google Scholar: if a profile exists, print the citation table; if not, run author-name searches and save the results pages.
• arXiv: pull your author listing page (arxiv.org/a/[lastname_f_1]) for preprints, which remain accessible regardless of institutional status.

Step 2: Capture conference proceedings independently

Search IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, or the conference's own archive for your papers; download PDFs or abstract pages rather than relying on a university-hosted copy.

Step 3: Archive everything before it disappears

For any page tied to the home institution — a faculty profile, a lab website, a repository entry — submit the URL to the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org/save) and keep the resulting permanent archive link alongside a dated screenshot. Do this promptly, since institutional sites may be reorganized or taken offline without notice.

Step 4: Compile a citation summary table

List each source (Scopus, Google Scholar, ORCID) with citation counts and retrieval dates side by side, since counts vary by database and the officer should see the methodology, not just a single number.

Handling institutional letters when direct contact is difficult or risky

Reference letters from recommenders still affiliated with Russian or Ukrainian institutions often cannot follow the conventional template of institutional email plus letterhead, for reasons of personal safety or simple loss of access. Build each letter so its authenticity does not depend on either.

Requesting the letter

Ask the recommender for a personal, non-institutional email address and a phone number, and request that the letter be written on plain paper with a dated, handwritten or scanned signature. Explain that the goal is a document USCIS can independently verify, not one that looks ceremonially official.

Substituting for letterhead

When institutional letterhead is unsafe or unavailable, have the recommender state their position, department, and institution in the body text rather than in a header graphic. Include their ORCID iD, Scopus Author ID, or a link to a lab or department page archived via the Wayback Machine, so the officer can cross-check the claimed affiliation against an independent record rather than the letter's formatting.

Making the letter verifiable

Each letter should include: full name as it appears on other credentials, title and institution, personal phone number and non-institutional email, a LinkedIn or ORCID profile URL, and the date and place of signing. Where notarization is accessible — through a local notary, a consulate, or an apostille service in a third country — have the signature notarized; where it is not, say so plainly in a cover note rather than leaving the gap unexplained. Keep a copy of any email correspondence used to request the letter, in case USCIS questions how it was obtained.

Addressing sanctions and export-control considerations in supporting evidence

Before submitting the petition, screen every institution, co-author employer, and funding source named in the evidence package against current US sanctions and export-control lists.

Where to check

1. OFAC Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List — search directly at treasury.gov using the OFAC Sanctions List Search tool. Enter the full institution name, known aliases, and any Russian/Ukrainian transliterations.
2. Commerce Department Entity List — search at bis.doc.gov under the Bureau of Industry and Security's list of restricted parties.
3. Do not rely on news summaries, blog posts, or third-party compilations — these lists change frequently, and only the source databases reflect the current status on the day you file.

What to screen

• Each co-author's current and past institutional affiliations listed in the publication evidence.
• Any grant-making body, foundation, or government agency credited in acknowledgments sections of papers.
• Any laboratory, research center, or company named in the petitioner's CV or reference letters.

Documenting the petitioner's own affiliations and funding

List all funding sources and institutional affiliations — past and present — in the petition narrative or a dedicated exhibit, rather than omitting entries that might appear sensitive. Include grant numbers, funding agency names, and dates where available. If a past funding source or affiliation has since become subject to sanctions, state the dates of the petitioner's involvement plainly rather than leaving the record silent. An unexplained gap or a conspicuously absent affiliation is more likely to prompt scrutiny than a disclosed one. Keep a dated screenshot or saved record of each list search for your own files.

Building the proposed endeavor statement around displacement or relocation

The personal statement should stay focused on the Dhanasar criteria — substantial merit, national importance, and the petitioner's well-positioning to advance the endeavor. Circumstances of departure from Russia or Ukraine do not need to be explained in this document at all, unless the departure itself materially shaped the endeavor's direction (for example, a shift in research focus toward a problem of US interest). Asylum, refugee status, or humanitarian hardship belongs in a separate filing (I-589 or related) and mixing it into the I-140 narrative tends to dilute the merit argument rather than support it.

Structure to follow

1. Opening paragraph — state the proposed endeavor in one or two sentences, framed in terms of its field and intended impact area (e.g., battery materials, computational immunology).
2. Substantial merit — cite the endeavor's technical, economic, or public-health significance, supported by independent sources (funding priorities, industry reports, agency strategic plans).
3. National importance — connect the endeavor to a US-specific need, supply chain gap, or research priority, not a general global benefit.
4. Well-positioned paragraph — summarize track record (publications, patents, prior roles) as evidence of capacity to execute, not as biography.
5. Balance of factors — close with why a labor certification process is impractical given the endeavor's nature.

Sample paragraph skeleton

"Dr. [Name] proposes to [endeavor], addressing [specific technical or economic problem] in the United States. This work has substantial merit because [merit basis], and national importance because [importance basis]. Dr. [Name] is well-positioned to advance this endeavor based on [evidence], as demonstrated in Exhibits [X–Y]."

Keep any mention of prior institutional affiliation factual and brief — location and dates only, without commentary on why the position ended.

Organizing the Form I-140 evidence package with a document index

An adjudicator reading a self-prepared petition should be able to move from the cover letter to any supporting exhibit without hunting. A consistent file-naming scheme and a document index accomplish this and double as your own tracking tool while translations and affidavits are still in progress.

File-naming scheme

Use two-digit numeric prefixes in filing order, followed by a short description, so files sort correctly in any folder view:

• 01-I140-cover-letter.pdf
• 02-personal-statement.pdf
• 03-evidence-publications.pdf
• 04-evidence-citations-scopus-scholar.pdf
• 05-recommendation-letter-ivanova.pdf
• 06-diploma-wes-evaluation.pdf
• 07-name-variant-affidavit.pdf
• 08-translation-certifications.pdf

Keep the same numbering inside the PDF itself as an exhibit letter (Exhibit A, B, C…) so the digital file, the printed binder tab, and the index table all match.

Sample document index table

Update the status column as each item clears. Before assembling the final PDF package, re-check that every exhibit referenced in the cover letter and personal statement has a corresponding row — missing cross-references are a common, avoidable gap.

Common RFE triggers specific to Russian and Ukrainian petitions

Some failure modes recur often enough in petitions built on Russian or Ukrainian records that they are worth checking for before filing, not after an RFE arrives.

In each case, the response packet works by adding missing documentation or a factual clarification — not by arguing the point.