|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
g****y
发帖数: 436 | 1 总结了上诉案例的一些判据
[rl]
It is important to note that none of the letters establishes how the author
relies on the petitioncr's
findings within their own work, nor do they explain how the petitioner's
work is being utilized and
applied in the field. Most identify how the petitioner's findings can or
will affect the field, but all
lack examples of how his findings have already had an effect on the field
[authorship,first,second author,secondary,second]
The petitioner provides 16 articles in which he is either the primary or a
secondary author and he claims ten presentations as evidence under this
criterion
[average,statistics,comparison,salary,local]
An average, local salary provided by Indeed.com
[award,graduate,local,comparison]
The sole award the petitioner submits is an American Chemical Society
Graduate Student Travel
Award. This does not rise to the level of a nationally or internationally
recognized award for
excellence. This travel award is also not indicative of or consistent with
sustained acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field
of endeavor. A travel award limited to graduate students does not compare
fhe petitioner with the most experienced and renowned members of his field
[review]
First, the petitioner must establish he has participated as a judge
or referee. Subsequent to establishing this participation, without evidence
that sets the petitioner
apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed
manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees,
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or
served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner
cannot estahlish that his judging experience is indicative of or consistent
with national or international recognition
[rl]
Regarding the petitioner's original contributions to his field, he has
authored 16 scholarly articles,
two of which appeared with commentary in he has made three presentations at
scientific conferences. In a quantifiable several of the those who submit
supporting
expert letters on the petitioner's behalf have published between 100 or more
scientific papers, one reports his position on the editorial advisory board
of nine scientific journals, one has received up to 30 awards, two report
80 or more patents awarded, and one has given 370 presentations. This
information is only gleaned from the letters themselves. The petitioner
failed to provide the curriculum vitae for each of the experts, even though
one expert refers users to his ev [curriculum vitae 1 for additional
achievements. However, this decision has also discussed how these same
experts in the field are unable to identify any of the petitioner's
achievements that have already had an impact on his field. Most of these
experts outlined some future benefit that will occur due to the
petitioner's work. The above listed achievements are not commensurate with
sustained acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field
of endeavor
[citation]
Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's
original findings and that the field has taken some interest to the
petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that the
petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field
[citation]
Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has
been cited by
others in their published material is insufficient to establish eligibility
for this criterion without
documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been of a
major significance in
the field.
[contribution,inquiries,emails]
The emails ret1ect only inquiries into her work rather than that
the petitioner's work has been widely applied throughout her field, so as to
demonstrate original
contributions of major significance in the field
[contribution,impacts,meeting,presentation]
Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present
new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals.
These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations,
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation
in such events, however, does not equate to an original contribution of
major significance in the field
[skills,contribution,impact]
Merely having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major
significance in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by
evidence that the petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact
the field at a significant level in an original way
[rl]
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting,
independent evidence of original contributions of major significance
[authorship,citation]
For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the
petitioner would
provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that other
researchers have been
influenced by her work.
[citation]
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence
reflecting that her work has been cited 73 times with the highest article
cited 55 times. As these citations demonstrate
moderate interest in her published work, they are not sufficient to
demonstrate that her articles
have attracted a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained
national or
international acclaim at the very top of her field
[rl]
Many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive
than those of the
petitioner and appear to have risen to a level far above his own
accomplishments
[publication]
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), the AAO
acknowledges that
the petitioner has documented his co-authorship of 16 journal articles that
were published at the
time of filing. The petitioner, however, has not established that his
publication record sets him
apart through a "career of acclaimed work."
[citation]
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted
documentary evidence reflecting that seven of the petitioner's articles were
cited approximately 118 times with the highest cited article cited 52 times
. The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding the
citations, if any, of his other nine articles. As these citations
demonstrate moderate interest in his published work, they are not sufficient
to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his
field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the
very top of his field
[citation]
Moreover, in support of the experts' statements, the petitioner submitted
documentation showing numerous cites to the beneficiary's published work.
These citations are solid evidence that other engineers have been influenced
by the beneficiary's work and are familiar with it
[evidence]
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.
[citation]
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted
citation results from Google Scholar indicating that the beneficiary's
article in Indian Journal of Pediatrics has been only moderately cited (14
times)
[award]
Scholarships, fellowships and competitive postdoctoral appointments
generally are not the type of nationally or internationally prizes or awards
for excellence that would establish that the alien has achieved sustained
national or international acclaim and recognition in the alien's field of
expertise
[date,patent,filing date]
Moreover, on appeal, the petitioner submitted a document from the World
Intellectual Property Organization regarding the petitioner's patent
entitled A review of the document reflects that the international
publication date is September 3, 2009. However, the petitioner filed his
employment-based immigrant visa petition on April 13, 2009. Eligibility must
be established at the time of filing
[funding]
According to the preceding information submitted by the petitioner, the NSF
grant received by him was intended to fund a "proposed" research activity
rather than to recognize his past
excellence in the field of endeavor
[funding]
Regarding the NSF research grants for which the petitioner applied and
received funding, the AAO notes that research grants simply fund a scientist
's work. Every successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are
hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously the past
achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals.
The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable
of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is
principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize
past achievement
[publication,paper]
Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or conference
presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner
must document the actual impact of his article or presentation
[rl,background,connection]
he AAO, however, is not persuaded that the evidence shows that the
petitioner has made either original contributions or contributions of major
significance in the field of infectious diseases and microbiology. First,
counsel has provided no curriculum vitae or detailed description for any of
the references' educational or employment background. Other than a job title
, the AAO is left with little evidence upon which it may determine if a
reference is qualified to give his or her opinion on the petitioner's
research or its impact in the field of infectious diseases and microbiology.
Moreover, the AAO does not have sufficient information to discern if the
references' opinions are objective or independent, because the AAO lacks
information on the association or connection between the petitioner and the
references, or how the references come to be familiar with the petitioner or
her research
[original,contribution]
Moreover, even assuming that the petitioner were the first person within
Splash to come up with the idea and to create the text feed service, the
letter fails to show that in November 2008, no other news agencies had
already created or developed a similar service or were in the process of
doing so. In short, there is insufficient evidence showing that Splash's
text feed service, even if it could be considered the petitioner's
contribution, constitutes an original contribution
[publication]
on petitioner's reference letters, the AAO finds that the Indian Journal of
Experimental Biology and the Indian Journal of Microbiology constitute
professional publications
[rl,signature]
As the preceding letter from is unsigned and does not provide any contact
information, it has no evidentiary
[scholarship,award]
Academic study is not a field of endeavor; rather it is training for a
future field of
endeavor. As such, academic scholarships cannot be considered nationally or
internationally
recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner 'sfield of endeavor
[review]
The submitted documentation demonstrates that the petitioner peer-reviewed a
single manuscript for
Molecular Immunology as of the petition's filing date. This documentation
minimally satisfies the
plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) | t*********r
发帖数: 4143 | | c********3
发帖数: 4531 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
