|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t******f
发帖数: 349 | 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
补充下条件：
Mechanical Engineering, Phd
11 Papers, 提交时87 citations in total(没有区分自他引)，
6 RL(5 independent,只有2篇来自引用的人)
现在citation涨了点，一共正好100,不过几乎全是中国人引用的。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
3月27号就被RFE了，无奈总是收不到RFE,Submit了2个service request都么有等到，终
于在congressman的帮助下今天搞到RFE了，一共耗时45天，估计人品都集中放在h1b抽
签去了，anyway，今天终于收到了，貌似承认了review, authorship,质疑了
contribution。
我把RFE贴在这里啊，麻烦大家帮忙看看，出出主意啊，还有接近40天的时候准备回复。
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation, either individually or on a
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that the plain
language of this criterion has been met.
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The record contains evidence regarding the beneficiary’s peer reviews,
scholarly articles/abstracts, conference proceedings, and support letters
that attest to his research on the “xxx”, “xxx”, etc.
This criterion has not been met because the record does not demonstrate that
the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in
the field, as a whole. While support letters are important, they cannot
substitute for objective documentary evidence which establishes that the
beneficiary has contributed significantly to the field.
The support letters agree that the beneficiary’s work is “a great
scientific resource” for other researchers and that his findings are a “
notable advance” in the field. However, every researcher that adds to the
general pool of knowledge has not necessarily made a contribution of major
significance in the field, as a whole. Thus, although the beneficiary’s
research has a citation following and has added to the general pool of
knowledge, the record lacks documentary evidence which demonstrates its
impact and significance in the field. To assist in determining whether the
beneficiary’s contributions (in the plural) are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contributions to the field.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field.
With respect to the beneficiary’s peer reviews, scholarly articles/
abstracts, and conference proceedings, nothing in the record establishes
that these accomplishments are considered to be original contributions of
major significance in the field.
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in the
field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that the plain
language of this criterion has been met.
As discussed above, the beneficiary has not garnered a one-time achievement
award or met at least three of the ten criteria. As such, USCIS is
affording the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence to
establish that the beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria. The response
to this request should address the insufficiencies articulated by USCIS in
this request.
Additionally, meeting the minimum regulatory criteria outlined above, alone,
will not establish eligibility for the E11 immigrant classification. Any
evidence submitted in response to this request, should also articulate how
the evidence establishes that the beneficiary possesses the required high
level of expertise for the E11 immigrant classification.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to articulate further details or
provide additional evidence in regards to how the evidence submitted in the
initial filing or in response to this Request for Evidence establishes that
the beneficiary meets the requirements regarding the required high level of
expertise for the immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:
• Sustained national or international acclaim.
o In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” national
or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary
may have achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to
maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and,
• Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
In conclusion, when ultimately making a final decision regarding eligibility
, USCIS will first evaluate the evidence submitted by the petitioner to
determine which regulatory criteria the beneficiary meets in part one of the
analyses. If the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary has received
a one-time achievement (a major internationally recognized award) or meets
at least three of the antecedent evidentiary prongs, then USCIS will
evaluate all of the evidence in the record to make a final merits
determination of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the
evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary has sustained national or
international acclaim and that the beneficiary’s achievements have been
recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one
of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of
endeavor.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to meet their legal burden of proof to
establish eligibility in all respects. Whenever any person makes an
application for an immigration benefit, they shall bear the burden of proof
to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the petitioner
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is
more likely than not, that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the
benefit sought. Accordingly, the decision will be based on the initial
evidence submitted upon filing and all additional evidence submitted in
response to this request.
You must submit the requested information within eighty-four (84) days from
the date of this letter (87 days if this notice was received by mail).
Failure to do so may result in the denial of the petition.
Please note the required deadline for providing a response to this Request
for Evidence. The deadline reflects the maximum period for responding to
this RFE. However, since many immigration benefits are time sensitive, you
are encouraged to respond to this request as early as possible, but no later
than the date provided on the request. | p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 2 这是比较常见的质疑贡献的模式。一般都是推荐信的问题。 | i*********1
发帖数: 2334 | | H*H
发帖数: 1244 | 4 请问你得RD是哪一天
复。
a
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: -----
: 补充下条件：
: Mechanical Engineering, Phd
: 11 Papers, 提交时87 citations in total(没有区分自他引)，
: 6 RL(5 independent,只有2篇来自引用的人)
: 现在citation涨了点，一共正好100,不过几乎全是中国人引用的。
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: -----
: 3月27号就被RFE了，无奈总是收不到RFE,Submit了2个service request都么有等到，终
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 5 1/14/2015
【在 H*H 的大作中提到】
: 请问你得RD是哪一天
:
: 复。
: a
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 6 XM0106
【在 i*********1 的大作中提到】
: IO是XM多少号？如果不是杀手可以轻松点
| i*********1
发帖数: 2334 | 7 0106: RFE (5+2**), Denial (0), Approval (6), Withdraw (0), Pending (1)
这个IO deny的不多，只是喜欢扔RFE
好好准备积极回复
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: XM0106
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 8 绿油油，我是要接着要推荐信吗？之前的一共交了6封，其实5个独立的，当然只有2个
cite了我的Paper的，另外是编辑，会议review一个方向的。这些推荐信还能接着用吗
？还是全部重来啊？
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 这是比较常见的质疑贡献的模式。一般都是推荐信的问题。
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 9 谢谢鼓励啊，只有40天了，哎，还是得积极点就是
【在 i*********1 的大作中提到】
: 0106: RFE (5+2**), Denial (0), Approval (6), Withdraw (0), Pending (1)
: 这个IO deny的不多，只是喜欢扔RFE
: 好好准备积极回复
| p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 10 一般都得重新要推荐信。
当然，其他材料也会跟着重新做。
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: 绿油油，我是要接着要推荐信吗？之前的一共交了6封，其实5个独立的，当然只有2个
: cite了我的Paper的，另外是编辑，会议review一个方向的。这些推荐信还能接着用吗
: ？还是全部重来啊？
| | | r******t
发帖数: 8967 | 11 看着还可以啊。感觉io说的详细是好事。最难对付的还是泛泛而谈地说你条件不够的。
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 这是比较常见的质疑贡献的模式。一般都是推荐信的问题。
| p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 12 推荐信力度不到，用词不够强悍，例证不够典型而丰富。
你得举一些影响了一个就是影响了一大片，就是影响了半个领域的例子。当然，这个主
要得靠包装，事实上没那么牛呵呵。
【在 r******t 的大作中提到】
: 看着还可以啊。感觉io说的详细是好事。最难对付的还是泛泛而谈地说你条件不够的。
| a****k
发帖数: 206 | 13 这个信息哪里找的？
【在 i*********1 的大作中提到】
: 0106: RFE (5+2**), Denial (0), Approval (6), Withdraw (0), Pending (1)
: 这个IO deny的不多，只是喜欢扔RFE
: 好好准备积极回复
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 14 是之前的所有推荐信都不能用了吗？还是再加两封推荐信补充啊？ | t*****e
发帖数: 241 | 15 跟我的RFE一样，也是xm0106
回复后就过了
承认了review，authorship，否认了contribution 和 high salary。
RFE的letter基本上是一字不差的
回复的时候集中contribution，简单证明了high salary，
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: -----
: 补充下条件：
: Mechanical Engineering, Phd
: 11 Papers, 提交时87 citations in total(没有区分自他引)，
: 6 RL(5 independent,只有2篇来自引用的人)
: 现在citation涨了点，一共正好100,不过几乎全是中国人引用的。
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: -----
: 3月27号就被RFE了，无奈总是收不到RFE,Submit了2个service request都么有等到，终
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 16 请问你是怎么证明contribution的啊？谢谢啊
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
: 跟我的RFE一样，也是xm0106
: 回复后就过了
: 承认了review，authorship，否认了contribution 和 high salary。
: RFE的letter基本上是一字不差的
: 回复的时候集中contribution，简单证明了high salary，
| t*****e
发帖数: 241 | 17 证明研究成果被广泛应用，
证明行业内贡献突出
找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸 | t******f
发帖数: 349 | 18 你是eb1a还是eb1b啊？
证明研究成果被广泛应用， 证明行业内贡献突出- 能举个例子吗？
找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸 - 是要独立推荐信是吗？是找的cite了你paper的人吗？谢
谢啊
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
: 证明研究成果被广泛应用，
: 证明行业内贡献突出
: 找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸
| t*****e
发帖数: 241 | 19 证明研究成果被广泛应用，
证明行业内贡献突出
找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸 | t*****e
发帖数: 241 | 20 证明研究成果被广泛应用，
证明行业内贡献突出
找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸 | | | t******f
发帖数: 349 | 21 我可以理解为就是找独立推荐信 是吗？
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
: 证明研究成果被广泛应用，
: 证明行业内贡献突出
: 找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸
| t******f
发帖数: 349 | 22 我可以理解为就是找独立推荐信是吗？尤其是引用了自己文章的独立推荐人。谢谢
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
: 证明研究成果被广泛应用，
: 证明行业内贡献突出
: 找业内大牛推荐，狠狠的夸
| b*****d
发帖数: 7166 | 23 看IO的话，意思是推荐信可以了，但是客观证据不足。 | t******f
发帖数: 349 | 24 那这个证据该怎么补充呢？呜呜
【在 b*****d 的大作中提到】
: 看IO的话，意思是推荐信可以了，但是客观证据不足。
| b*****d
发帖数: 7166 | 25 挖亮点。看有没有新的引用，用google搜每个文章，看到5页至少。从新的角度吹一下。
【在 t******f 的大作中提到】
: 那这个证据该怎么补充呢？呜呜
| t*****e
发帖数: 241 | 26 其实推荐信也可以是客观证据，只要在推荐信中有具体的实例，不要空谈即可
我是又补了四份很有针对性的推荐信。 | t*****e
发帖数: 241 | 27 其实推荐信也可以是客观证据，只要在推荐信中有具体的实例，不要空谈即可
我是又补了四份很有针对性的推荐信。 | e*******b
发帖数: 326 | 28 跟我一个IO， RFE信都差不多，不过我没时间要推荐信就回复了。如果你需要什么，可
以发信给我。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
