o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 1 本人自觉背景很弱，可是还要硬着头皮试试eb1b，先看了2010年全年和2009年半年的
decision letter，在这里分享一下心得.没有经验，还请大家多提意见，抛砖引玉吧.
大牛们这段可以略过了，完全是背景知识.这些decision是USCIS的Administrative
Appeals Office （AAO） 针对申请人的上诉作出的最终决定.官官相护嘛，结论大部分
都是支持审案件的USCIS director（虽然有很多IO，但是案件结论似乎名义上来自
director）的结论——驳回EB1B申请.下面我把这些判决里面自己觉得有帮助的找了一
下，如果是英语，基本就是直接从里面拷下来的.
这些引文的分类大致遵循EB1B的官方要求．其口吻基本上就是USCIS AAO在说为什么律
师(counsel)的上诉没有道理,受益人（beneficiary）哪里不合要求，USCIS（Service
Center或director）的决定如何英明等等．我本来的想法是把这些话从否定句改成肯定
句就行了，结果发现，那就干脆别费劲了，我肯定达不到要求．所以才有前两天发了个
贴问问：因为这些案子都是那些被拒的１０％里面的，如果他们的可以打１分，那么那
些稍微强一些的１０％到２０％的案子是打２分还是４分？我们也不知道具体分布函数
，所以不好猜．但无论如何很难说１０％到２０％的那些案子真的就符合要求了．也许
正因如此，USCIS才不会发布那些通过的案件，就大家拿那些decision letter说事也是
没有约束力的．当然，这恐怕正是我们想看到的情况．
虽然如此，这些＂反面＂教材总还是可以帮助我们避免一些陷阱的吧．而且学学英语也
不错．
我曾经试图把EB1B的材料按如下的二维表格分类．横轴（ABCD...)是官方要求，纵轴（
１２３４.．．）是各种材料．官方要求有官方的定义，不一定和我们的理解一致．比
如为了达到contribution的要求，可以讨论论文,报道，推荐信等证据．当然，这种条
块分割各个击破的办法也不是绝对的．比如推荐信里可以讨论推荐人引用申请人的文章
来支持contribution．如果我们有一个类似这样的数据库，大家看到自己decision
letter能后能够把可以分享的部分按分类放进去，不知是不是对后来者有帮助．
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 2 先说说一个老案子Kazarian vs uscis ，肯定很多人讨论过了．
1. 官方定义
- Kazarian vs uscis sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is
first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits
determination.
- While USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance
of
the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should
have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination."
2. 一些例子
• to establish international recognition, and any evidence
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent
indicative
of international recognition.
• As explained in our final merits determination,' however, much of
the evidence that technically qualifies under these criteria reflects
routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not, as of the
date
of filing, set the beneficiary apart in the academic community through
eminence and distinction based on international recognition.
• the beneficiary's most notable achievement, a single article that
garnered initial attention on two websites but has not been widely
cited,
cannot, by itself, demonstrate the beneficiary's international
recognition
as outstanding.
• The beneficiary has reviewed manuscripts submitted for
publication in Life Sciences. This evidence qualifies under the plain
language of 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), for counting purposes.
出身不是决定性证据：
• Finally, counsel's assertion on appeal that the petitioner's
distinguished reputation alone demonstrates that the beneficiary must be
internationally recognized as outstanding or it would not have hired her
is
not persuasive. As stated above, the regulation does not permit the
submission of "comparable" evidence. Thus, we cannot infer eligibility
from
affiliation with an internationally recognized employer in the absence
of
qualifying evidence that meets the plain language of at least two
regulatory
categories of evidence and, through a final merits determination, is
indicative of or consistent with international recognition as
outstanding
三个臭皮匠还是臭皮匠：
• While we recognize the cumulative nature of the regulations, it
cannot credibly be argued that two ordinary achievements for a
researcher
are any more persuasive than a single ordinary achievement would be.
Thus,
we reject counsel's implication that the evidence submitted to meet a
given
criterion need not set the alien apart from others in the field. (every
evidence has to some extent to be indicative of international
recognition).
• We cannot conclude that Congress intended to characterize
international recognition for this classification of aliens as merely
having
worked or studied in more than one country.
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 3 有关技术性操作规程.
1. 所有材料应该在申请前准备好
- the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility as of the
date of filing
- A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible
under a new set of facts. the identity of the petitioner is a material issue
that may not be amended.
- doess not indicate that reference was aware of the beneficiary's original
contributions to the prior to the request that he review the heneficiary's
professional achievements.
- The citation search results submitted on appeal were conducted on May 7,
2008 and do not necessarily reflect citations as of the date of filing in
this matter.
2. AAO可以否决i140批准
律师申请eb1b时把LC也交上去了，竟然通过了，然后收到NOR。律师说他本来是想选EB2
的，结果填错表了，想现在改成EB2，结果被拒。需要重新申请。
- By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly
approved is good and sufficient cause for the revocation of the approval of
an immigrant petition. The approval of a visa petition vests no rights in
the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a
preliminary step in the visa application process. Id. at 589. The
beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an
immigrant visa. Id.
3. 材料不全可以RFE或者直接据
- if the initial evidence does not demonstrate eligibility, U.S. Citizenshp
and Immigration Services (USCIS) in its discretion may deny the petition for
ineligibility OR request any missing evidence.
4．EB1B的i140是自己签的
- On motion, counsel asserts that the alien self-petitioner signed the Form
1-140 due to "our law office mistake." Counsel submitted an amended Form 1-
140 signed by the alien self-petitioner's U.S.employer. The director
concluded that the motion had not overcome the grounds of the denial. On
appeal, counsel reiterates the assertions that the alien self-petitioner "
inadvertently" signed the petition and that it was "a mistake from our law
office." Counsel asserts that because the classification does not require an
alien employment certification, he assumed that the alien could file the
petition.
- by self-filing the original petition, the alien is the only affected party
in this matter as defined at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B); thus the U.S.
employer has no legal standing to amend the petition.
- This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a
United States employer
5. AAO可以找Service Center以前没有提出的问题
- An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical
requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center
does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision.
5．未发表的决定
律师是不是有很多RFE，decision letter在手。虽然这些东西不具约束力，也很有价值
啊。
- On appeal, counsel submits unpublished decisions (unbinding) by this
office, most of which discuss citations.
6．O1 visa
- At the outset, while U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
approved at least one O-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the
beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an
immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard.
- Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than
1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved
in error.
- It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat
acknowledged errors as binding precedent.
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 4 A. Award
1.1 奖学金
• “academic scholarships and student awards cannot be considered
prizes or awards in the beneficiary's field of endeavor. Moreover,
competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced
experts in the field are not seeking scholarships. Similarly,
experienced
experts do not compete for fellowships and competitive postdoctoral
appointments. Thus, they do not suggest that a beneficiary is
internationally recognized.”
• A postdoctoral appointment, even if competitive for recent
graduates, is a job offer and not a prize or award for outstanding
achievement in the field.
1.2 学术奖
• 参评人员需要是领域里更加专业的人士
“On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner confirmed that the award
from Liaoning Province placed the beneficiary within the top 1
percent of
over 1 million students among 75 universities and colleges in that
province and that these awards are "indicative that [the beneficiary]
was
nationally recognized for his outstanding research work in the
field of
plasma engineering while he was a student in China." Ultimately, we
cannot
ignore that the beneficiary's awards were limited to a pool of
students
and do not compare the beneficiary with more experienced members of
the field internationally or even nationally.”
• 奖项应该有一定影响力，必须是给申请人的。
The 2001 Science and Technology Progress Award appears to be a city
award
that is not indicative of international recognition. Moreover, as stated
above, it was issued to a different individual. While the record
includes a
letter f r o m as serting that the beneficiary was in charge of the
actual
study design and analysis, it remains that the beneficiary did not
"receive"
the award.
• 来自雇主的奖项需要有一定竞争性和影响
We are not persuaded that the petitioner can generate its own qualifying
evidence by issuing the beneficiary an award of undocumented
significance.
The record contains no evidence regarding how many of the petitioner's
employees receive similar recognition and bonuses every year. The record
also lacks evidence that the field as a whole recognizes such employee
recognition as a major prize or award, such as, for example, coverage in
the
national trade media of the award selections.
1.3 研究基金
• Nevertheless, a research grant, even a competitive, prestigious
grant, is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor
or
recognize past achievement.
1.4 SigmaXi等类似组织的会员
• The director concluded that the record did not demonstrate that "
noteworthy achievement" as defined by Sigma Xi rises to the level of an
outstanding achievement. While the material must be available to the
(sigma
xi’s) Committee on Admission if requested, the record contains no
evidence
that the committee routinely evaluates the content of the publications
of
every prospective member.
1.5 名人录
• The order form for inclusion in Who's Who in Science and
Engineering provides that a certificate of inclusion is provided free to
those who purchase a book. Major awards do not typically require an
expenditure of money for the award certificate.
(待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 5 B. Membership
2.1 对学会的要求
• the beneficiary's membership in the American Physical Society (
APS) cannot serve as qualifymg evidence
• Even assuming that an application for membership must be
supported by two current members, we are not persuaded that sponsorship
is
an outstanding achievement.
• Rather, the bylaws state that it is fellow membership that is
restricted to those distinguished through "outstanding contributions."
Fellow membership is restricted to five percent of the voting
membership.
The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary was elected as a
fellow
member of SPIE.
2.2 多于一个学会的会员
• Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj
204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) uses the word "associations" in the plural. The
petitioner has not documented the beneficiary's membership in a second
association or provided evidence that this second association requires
outstanding achievements of its members.
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 6 C. Report
3.1 一般性引用不算
• Articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about
the author's own work or recent trends in the field, not the
beneficiary's. As such, they cannot be considered published material
about the beneficiary and, thus, cannot serve to meet the plain language of
this criterion.
• The only rational interpretation of the phrase "published
material" is that the article in its entirety, and not each individual
sentence, constitutes the published material that must be "about" the alien.
3.2 独立报道更有说服力
• As the book chapter is authored by the beneficiary's own Ph.D
. advisor and cites an article coauthored with that advisor, it cannot
demonstrate the beneficiary's recognition beyond his immediate circle of
collaborators
• independent journalistic coverage in professional publications
carries more weight than necessarily subjective press releases.
• ,press releases are promotional in nature and carry less weight
than independent journalistic coverage of the beneficiary's work.
• while we do not question the reputation of the University of
Michigan, the petitioner has not demonstrated that inhouse coverage of the
work being performed by its own professors is consistent with international
recognition rather than international exposure.
3.3 专业出版物的报道
• As this Internet page is a professional publication, this
evidence is qualifying evidence that meets the requirements of the
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C).
3.4 需要直接报道申请人
• The published material at www.medpagetoday.com, while technically
"about" the beneficiary's work, does not quote him.
• While about the beneficiary's work, the press releases do not
mention the beneficiary by name other than to list him as a postdoctoral
associate who participated in the work at the end of the release.
3.5 报道需要有一定的流通
• the record lacks evidence that this paper is internationally or
even nationally circulated
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 7 D. Review
4.1 审稿邀请最好是独立的
• Editor, a professor at the petitioning university. Thus, his
selection of the beneficiary to perform reviews is only indicative of the
beneficiary's reputation at that university.
4.2 审稿人需要一定资质
• the review invitations addressed to the beneficiary all request
that if the beneficiary is unable to perform the review, he recommend an
alternate reviewer. These requests do not ask for an explanation of what
distinguishes the suggested alternate from any other member of the field.
• does not provide the number of reviewers utilized by the journal
annually or suggest that the journal utilizes an exclusive set of credited
reviewers.
• The record does not establish that the beneficiary has reviewed
manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees,
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, served
in an editorial position for a distinguished journal or provided similar
judging services that might set her apart from her peers with eminence and
distinction.
• Significantly, if 77 people represent the top five percent of
reviewers for this onejournal, this journal utilizes approximately 385 (???)
reviewers annually. (The beneficiary was awarded the top five percent of
reviewers) The number of total reviewers for this one journal reinforces our
conclusion that peer review is routine in the field; not every peer
reviewer enjoys international recognition.
4.3 替老板审稿
• the record contains no evidence that journals have requested the
beneficiary to review manuscripts. Rather, strongly implies that he
delegated the review requests he received to the beneficiary. Assisting with
manuscript reviews for one's own supervisor is not indicative of any wider
recognition beyond one's own supervisor.
4.4 助教，博士委员会，内部评审
• using "judge" as a noun (in the regulation), does not merely
require incidental judging experience, but evidence of participation as a "
judge," not a "teacher" or an "advisor." A teacher is primarily a teacher,
not a judge. As such, a teaching assistant position is not a position as a "
judge." (in the reference letter, “…judge students' abilities to solve
problems”)
• Simply advising a student on an informal level (external phd
committee) cannot constitute evidence of participating as a judge of the
work of others.
• It cannot be logically asserted that every professor, all of whom
judge their students to some degree, has judging experience consistent with
international recognition.
• We are not persuaded that reviewing class projects in his own
class and other research at the company where he works are indicative of
international recognition
（待续） | e******r
发帖数: 9977 | 8 赞爱学习的好兄弟，谢谢分享～～
【在 o*******u 的大作中提到】
: 本人自觉背景很弱，可是还要硬着头皮试试eb1b，先看了2010年全年和2009年半年的
: decision letter，在这里分享一下心得.没有经验，还请大家多提意见，抛砖引玉吧.
: 大牛们这段可以略过了，完全是背景知识.这些decision是USCIS的Administrative
: Appeals Office （AAO） 针对申请人的上诉作出的最终决定.官官相护嘛，结论大部分
: 都是支持审案件的USCIS director（虽然有很多IO，但是案件结论似乎名义上来自
: director）的结论——驳回EB1B申请.下面我把这些判决里面自己觉得有帮助的找了一
: 下，如果是英语，基本就是直接从里面拷下来的.
: 这些引文的分类大致遵循EB1B的官方要求．其口吻基本上就是USCIS AAO在说为什么律
: 师(counsel)的上诉没有道理,受益人（beneficiary）哪里不合要求，USCIS（Service
: Center或director）的决定如何英明等等．我本来的想法是把这些话从否定句改成肯定
| o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 9 E. Contribution
5.1 何谓贡献？
• As noted by counsel on appeal, the plain language of the
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the
beneficiary's contributions themselves be internationally recognized as
outstanding. That said, the plain language of the regulation does not
simply
require original research, but an original "research contribution."
• Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by
listing the beneficiary's past projects and demonstrating that the
beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate
prior
research.
• Must be a contribution “to the academic field” rather than to
an institution
• whether or not the contributions are indicative of the
beneficiary's international recognition in the field is a valid
consideration under our final merits determination. In the plain
language of
the regulation, contribution to a field doesn’t need to have
international
recognition.
5.2 推荐信
• In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters
containing mere assertions of widespread recognition and vague claims
of
contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically
identify
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions
have
influenced the field.
• In addition, letters from independent references who were
previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation and who have
applied his work are the most persuasive.
• Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the
petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially
for
submission with the petition.
• (reference) not express any interest in licensing or otherwise
utilizing this test platform himself and does not identify any
independent laboratory pursuing studies with the beneficiary's platform.
• The petitioner did not submit letters from independent references
who affirm their own reliance on the beneficiary's work or who were
even
simply familiar with his work through his reputation.
• Use of beneficiary’s data by reference doesn’t not constitute
contribution to the field as a whole.
• At the outset, however, as stated by the director, the letters,
while not identical, all use very similar language consistent with a
common
source. We acknowledge that the authors all signed their letters,
affirming
the contents. Nevertheless, the use of slightly modified boilerplate
language somewhat reduces the evidentiary weight of these letters.
• Reference does not explain whether he was simply asked to review
the beneficiary's curriculum vitae, whether he has a connection to the
beneficiary or his collaborators or whether he is independent of the
beneficiary and his collaborators and knows of the beneficiary's work
primarily through the beneficiary's international reputation.
• Reference does not profess any first hand knowledge of the grant
being awarded to the beneficiary
• include reference letters from all previous supervisors?
5.3 其他证据？
• Does not suggest that the beneficiary's patented innovation has
been licensed, successfully marketed, or otherwise widely utilized in
the
field.
• does not explain how it has impacted the field.
• does not affirm that policy makers have relied on the beneficiary
's data
• the beneficiary's work has recently had practical applications
does not demonstrate its notable impact as of the date of filing
• the beneficiary "will become a scientist of note in the future in
the United States." doesnot suggest that the beneficiary is already
internationally recognized as outstanding based on his past
contribution.
• but the very existence of the patent application does not show
that the beneficiary's invention is more significant than those of
others in
his field.
• We are not persuaded that merely collaborating with industry
demonstrates that the beneficiary stands apart with eminence and
distinction
through international recognition.
• does not identify independent research teams that are now
utilizing t h e beneficiary's results or indicate that Intel has done
so.
• While the beneficiary may have published his work in
prestigious journals and presented his work at significant
conferences,
such evidence only demonstrates international exposure. We will not
presume the impact of the beneficiary's published and presented work
from
the prestige of the publications in which it appeared or the conferences
where it was presented. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate
the
impact of a given article or presentation.
• The actual articles by independent researchers citing the
beneficiary's work do not single it out as any more significant that the
dozens of other articles cited.
• A lot of people are using his software
• According to the email sent to the beneficiary's coauthor (the
first listed author), editors "scan the newly published literature to
find
the hottest new papers and provide short, insightful summaries that help
you
stay on top of the latest advances." The record does not establish how
many
articles are issued in the field of signal transduction every week or
how
many of those articles are summarized
on this webpage
• In order to constitute a contribution to the field, however, the
petitioner must demonstrate that the article has actually had some type
of
impact. We cannot ignore that the record lacks evidence that this
article
has been widely cited as might be expected of a contribution to the
academic
field.
• While asserts that this work was well recognized by the
beneficiary's collaborators, he does not explain how it has already
impacted
the beneficiary's academic field beyond those collaborators.
• The petitioner has not established that poster presentations
undergo the same type of rigorous peer review afforded published
articles.
• A press release from the University of Denver confirms this
information (500 people, including former Supreme Justice, attended the
beneficiary’s book signing in Karachi).
• (Reference) confirms that in her graduate courses she has been
assigning a chapter from the beneficiary's book and two of her articles
as
required readings. A senior instructor at the University of Colorado-
Boulder, also asserts that he assigns chapter from the beneficiary's
book
and her articles as assigned reading.
• Several of these experts have explained how they are currently
using the beneficiary's work.
• demonstrated through reliance on the beneficiary's work by the U.
N. and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
• 更加注重单篇引用率
As evidence of the significance of the beneficiary's articles, counsel
relies on the total number of citations of those articles in the
aggregate.
On appeal, counsel submits unpublished decisions (unbinding) by this
office,
most of which discuss citations. That said, the decisions submitted by
counsel, with the exception of one decision where the alien was only
minimally cited in the aggregate, discuss the citation level for
individual
articles rather than in the aggregate.
• The beneficiary's two articles in this journal were cited once in
one year and seven times over six years, below the mean rate for the
journal.(counsel submitted the citation rate of the journal).
• The majority of the citations do not single out the beneficiary's
work.
• This minimal reliance cannot, by itself, establish that the
beneficiary's Ph.D. research constitutes a contribution to the field as
a
whole. Rather, the citation evidence as a whole indicates that the
beneficiary's work is part of a growing interest in that area of
research
• For example, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner
has attracted media attention or new investment based on the
beneficiary's
research or patent-pending innovations.
• Significantly, the record contains evidence that the beneficiary'
s field is amenable to becoming widely cited. Specifically, in response
to
the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted
evidence of two articles citing the beneficiary's work that in turn were
cited 84 and 50 times, far more than the beneficiary's individual
articles
had been cited as of the date of filing.
• While the prestige of a journal may demonstrate the promising
nature of the work published in that journal, we will not presume that
every
article published in a prestigious journal ultimately contributed to
the
field as a whole.
• Moreover, the petitioner did not author a full article appearing
in Blood. Rather, the journal reproduced the abstracts of poster
presentations at the ASH Annual Meeting in 2005.
• Reference further developed the beneficiary's model and used it
in an extended parametric study with the verification of more
experimental
results. This work. however. was reported in an article coauthored with
Dr.
the beneficiary's Ph.D. advisor and coauthor. he fact that continues to
expand on his own work (performed with the beneficiary), in
collaboration
with others, is not evidence that the beneficiary's work is
independently
recognized.
• A review of the article reveals that and reference did indeed
utilize the beneficiary's model.
5.4 对雇主的贡献
• The fact that the beneficiary, an engineer in the research and
development section of a private company, has developed an improved
product
for his employer does not necessarily set the beneficiary apart from
other
engineers working on product development. The record contains little
independent coverage of the new products in the trade media.
• providing useful statistical analysis for his employer does not
necessarily set the beneficiary apart from any other competent research
analyst
• beneficiary has influenced members of his field, health outcomes
research, beyond the institutions with which he has been affiliated
• For example, citations confirming the use of the beneficiary's
model by independent research teams would be more persuasive than a
citation
that cites the beneficiary's work as one of several articles in support
of
background propositions
• While we do not question : on these points, at issue is not
whether the beneficiary is replaceable at the petitioning company, but
whether she enjoys international recognition in general and, more
specific
to this criterion, for her original contributions. We note that the
classification sought, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, does
not
take into account the employer's specific needs, however legitimate
• While asserts that a start-up company was formed to commercialize
results with DMD, does not assert that this company was formed after
the
beneficiary joined this research and as result of his work in this area
5.5 不是NIW
• The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in
the United States, however, is an issue under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Labor.
• Statements a s to the importance of the area of the
beneficiary's work do not necessarily establish the beneficiary's
individual international recognition.
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 10 F. Authorship
6.1 文章质量，数量
• a single well-received article is not persuasive evidence of
international recognition as outstanding.
• The record contains no evidence that any of the beneficiary's
articles has been individually cited at a level consistent with
international recognition or other comparable evidence. (this is needed in
the final merit determination)
• In this matter, the petitioner has provided only a single
citation of the beneficiary's work and no evidence that it is assigned
reading in course curricula internationally or even locally. Thus, the
beneficiary's publication record is merely evidence of international
exposure rather than international recognition.
（待续） | | | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 11 三年经历.
- 似乎如果是说三年工作经历，不需要证明outstanding；如果要算phd的时间，就要证
明.不知理解对否.Evidence that the alien has at least three years of
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. Experience in
teaching or research while working on an advanced degree will only be
acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the teaching duties
were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the
academic field as outstanding. Evidence of teaching and/or research
experience shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer
(s) and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a
specific description of the duties performed by the alien
- That saidi, it is noted that these review responsibilities, however,
postdate the beneficiary's time as a Ph.D. student and are not indicative of
any recognition of that work as outstanding in the academic field.
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 12 有关工作性质与雇主
1. 永久工作
• having no fixed term and in which the employee will ordinarily
have an expectation of permanent employment" are comparable positions.
• potential for continued funding is irrelevant
• Thus, a letter addressed to U. S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) afirming the beneficiary's employment is not a job offer
within the ordinary meaning of that phrase.
•有关adjunct professor: On November 10, 2008, this office advised
the petitioner that its Academic Personnel Manual, Section 280-16(c), limits
employment in the adjunct series to eight years. In response, the
petitioner notes that adjust assistant professor may move to other positions
after eight years and that tenure-track positions are also limited to a
specific period during which the employee must obtain tenure to remain
employed. Thus, we are persuaded that the position is a research position
comparable to a tenure-track position.
2. 雇主资质
• petitioner must "demonstrate" its achievement of documented
accomplishments.
• a state agency rather than a university, institution of higher
education or a private employer, is not an eligible employer qualified to
file a petition under the classification sought.
• The president's job description includes managing the
development of computational algorithms, coordinating work with university
partners, interfacing with clients and customers, ensuring that all
contractual obligations are met and managing new business acquisitions. Thus
, the president is not employed "full-time in research activities"
• Neither the statute nor the legislative history clearly indicates
whether the alien beneficiary can himself be the third full-time research
employee for purposes of a private entity's eligibility to file a visa
petition under 5 203(b)(l)(B).
If an alien researcher is currently outside the United States, and
intends to enter the United States with an immigrant visa, then the
prospective employer must already employ at least three full-time
researchers in the relevant department, division, or institute. In such a
case, the three researchers obviously do not include the alien. Thus, the
statutory construction demonstrates that the alien must seek to become the
fourth researcher in a company that already employs three other researchers.
In instances where the alien is already in the United States as a
nonimmigrant, and the alien has joined two other researchers to become the
third researcher, then the employer does not satisfy the statutory
construction. There is no regulatory or statutory justification for the
arbitrary assumption that a company too small to petition for a worker who
is still overseas can, nevertheless, petition for that same worker if the
worker is already in the United States as a nonimmigrant. Therefore, we find
that the position held by the alien beneficiary shall not be counted as one
of the three persons involved full-time in research activities.
• A comparison of chemical engineering researchers with those of
laboratory technicians reveals that the technicians are not full-time
research positions. For example, laboratory technicians' duties do not
include the type of creative design and planning duties inherent to research
positions.
（待续） | o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 13 就这些，如果看着有用，给两个包子吃吃？我还想找别人要材料啊.
最后请大家给个看法
4篇文章，化学，两一作，一二作.IF不是很差，但也不是领域最好.二作那篇杂志很好
，封面文章，可是发了快一年到现在无一引用:(总引用40多，大部分来自于那片三作的
，完全不同的领域，一作的两篇各有十个左右引用，自引四五次吧，一共.
审稿很烂，就两次,这还是找了主编的结果，也发了不少信了，连那些我自己都没听说
过的杂志都不给机会.
最后再说一句，那些引用肯定不是实际操作中的标准，所以我们还是要有信心的，呵呵 | e******r
发帖数: 9977 | 14 1b背景在贵专业貌似小弱啊。不过你已经研究这么多了，肯定有很多包装技巧，先
申了再说，加油～
【在 o*******u 的大作中提到】
: 就这些，如果看着有用，给两个包子吃吃？我还想找别人要材料啊.
: 最后请大家给个看法
: 4篇文章，化学，两一作，一二作.IF不是很差，但也不是领域最好.二作那篇杂志很好
: ，封面文章，可是发了快一年到现在无一引用:(总引用40多，大部分来自于那片三作的
: ，完全不同的领域，一作的两篇各有十个左右引用，自引四五次吧，一共.
: 审稿很烂，就两次,这还是找了主编的结果，也发了不少信了，连那些我自己都没听说
: 过的杂志都不给机会.
: 最后再说一句，那些引用肯定不是实际操作中的标准，所以我们还是要有信心的，呵呵
| o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 15 您客气，就是弱啊.这才意识到律师的重要性，可惜没钱.
【在 e******r 的大作中提到】
: 1b背景在贵专业貌似小弱啊。不过你已经研究这么多了，肯定有很多包装技巧，先
: 申了再说，加油～
| p**********n
发帖数: 173 | 16 For review, you may want to try journals by RSC, they have many journals and
they share the same database.
【在 o*******u 的大作中提到】
: 就这些，如果看着有用，给两个包子吃吃？我还想找别人要材料啊.
: 最后请大家给个看法
: 4篇文章，化学，两一作，一二作.IF不是很差，但也不是领域最好.二作那篇杂志很好
: ，封面文章，可是发了快一年到现在无一引用:(总引用40多，大部分来自于那片三作的
: ，完全不同的领域，一作的两篇各有十个左右引用，自引四五次吧，一共.
: 审稿很烂，就两次,这还是找了主编的结果，也发了不少信了，连那些我自己都没听说
: 过的杂志都不给机会.
: 最后再说一句，那些引用肯定不是实际操作中的标准，所以我们还是要有信心的，呵呵
| m****r
发帖数: 202 | 17 I am learning AAO too. Thank you for sharing. | a***n
发帖数: 3951 | | c****l
发帖数: 1086 | | f*******l
发帖数: 1604 | | f*****e
发帖数: 1889 | |
|
