f*******2
发帖数: 656 | 1 我的NIW的RFE，
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/32082793.html
EB1A的RFE有10来页。初看得时候很是丧气，觉得没什么希望了，也没有勇气看完。后
来家里的ＬＤ冲上来帮忙看了看，被ＬＤ安慰了一下，也就平静了一点。
review和publication过了，问得主要是contribution。
the reviewer gave critics to each letter i submitted, saying X documented my
critical work but didn't give evidence of contribution; saying Y described
my contribution but didn't indicate the contribution was original. 最后他说
“the beneficiary appears to have performed a vital supporting role in that
research.”
请大家给点建议吧。
这个officer是0446，好像没有什么记录，也不晓得水深水浅。 |
T*******y
发帖数: 6523 | 2 Who might appear to be that main role in the research, now that the IO
mentioned that you might be a supporting role? Could you get a letter from
that person to say that your contribution is original and major, but not
just supporting the work?
Contribution is almost the sure-thing to be questioned in an RFE, since it's
nearly the same as totality. Don't get discouraged, and you have a very
good chance to get it approved.
my
described
that
【在 f*******2 的大作中提到】
: 我的NIW的RFE，
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/32082793.html
: EB1A的RFE有10来页。初看得时候很是丧气，觉得没什么希望了，也没有勇气看完。后
: 来家里的ＬＤ冲上来帮忙看了看，被ＬＤ安慰了一下，也就平静了一点。
: review和publication过了，问得主要是contribution。
: the reviewer gave critics to each letter i submitted, saying X documented my
: critical work but didn't give evidence of contribution; saying Y described
: my contribution but didn't indicate the contribution was original. 最后他说
: “the beneficiary appears to have performed a vital supporting role in that
: research.”
|
f*******2
发帖数: 656 | 3 thanks for the response. are you saying i shall get a follow-up letter from
the same person (the study PI), asking him to justify my importance in the
study? or i should ask for a letter from a different person, claiming my
contribution is original and major?
's
【在 T*******y 的大作中提到】
: Who might appear to be that main role in the research, now that the IO
: mentioned that you might be a supporting role? Could you get a letter from
: that person to say that your contribution is original and major, but not
: just supporting the work?
: Contribution is almost the sure-thing to be questioned in an RFE, since it's
: nearly the same as totality. Don't get discouraged, and you have a very
: good chance to get it approved.
:
: my
: described
|
f*****r
发帖数: 300 | |
f*******2
发帖数: 656 | 5 你是说get a follow-up letter from them?
【在 f*****r 的大作中提到】
: X， Y双管齐下吧，如果有可能。个人见解
|
T*******y
发帖数: 6523 | 6 Asking the PI for a letter was what I meant earlier. But asking another
new letter on your work's impact to their work is surely also helpful.
I noticed that you have got a NIW RFE as well, right? I didn't read your
post on that fully, were the RFEs similar? I am asking because just now
I read this article from Zac Liu:
AAO推翻移民局决定，支持文章共同作者
http://www.mitbbs.com/ym_article/LiuLaw/31076403.html
It seems that NIW only request "significant or crucial contribution",
but not "major or primary contribution", so maybe your NIW should not be
RFEed.
from the same person (the study PI), asking him to justify my importance
in the study? or i should ask for a letter from a different person,
claiming my contribution is original and major?
【在 f*******2 的大作中提到】
: thanks for the response. are you saying i shall get a follow-up letter from
: the same person (the study PI), asking him to justify my importance in the
: study? or i should ask for a letter from a different person, claiming my
: contribution is original and major?
:
: 's
|
f*******2
发帖数: 656 | 7 for some reason two RFEs were filed by the same IO, but they are not similar
. you can find it http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/32082793.html
please let me know what you think.
【在 T*******y 的大作中提到】
: Asking the PI for a letter was what I meant earlier. But asking another
: new letter on your work's impact to their work is surely also helpful.
: I noticed that you have got a NIW RFE as well, right? I didn't read your
: post on that fully, were the RFEs similar? I am asking because just now
: I read this article from Zac Liu:
: AAO推翻移民局决定，支持文章共同作者
: http://www.mitbbs.com/ym_article/LiuLaw/31076403.html
: It seems that NIW only request "significant or crucial contribution",
: but not "major or primary contribution", so maybe your NIW should not be
: RFEed.
|
j*z
发帖数: 620 | 8 别灰心，我LD２个月前PP了也是RFE，而且只有Review一项过。其他两项+totality都不
过， RFE信也有１０几页。后来精心准备了一个月，递交后一周过了。别着急，沉住气
，会过的。
my
described
that
【在 f*******2 的大作中提到】
: 我的NIW的RFE，
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/32082793.html
: EB1A的RFE有10来页。初看得时候很是丧气，觉得没什么希望了，也没有勇气看完。后
: 来家里的ＬＤ冲上来帮忙看了看，被ＬＤ安慰了一下，也就平静了一点。
: review和publication过了，问得主要是contribution。
: the reviewer gave critics to each letter i submitted, saying X documented my
: critical work but didn't give evidence of contribution; saying Y described
: my contribution but didn't indicate the contribution was original. 最后他说
: “the beneficiary appears to have performed a vital supporting role in that
: research.”
|
f*******2
发帖数: 656 | 9 谢谢妹妹的安慰。 从下个星期起要好好开始准备了。
我又看了一下RFE，好像这个IO没有在信提到totality -- 是我漏掉的什么吗？
妹妹的信里是怎么说totality的？
【在 j*z 的大作中提到】
: 别灰心，我LD２个月前PP了也是RFE，而且只有Review一项过。其他两项+totality都不
: 过， RFE信也有１０几页。后来精心准备了一个月，递交后一周过了。别着急，沉住气
: ，会过的。
:
: my
: described
: that
|
