c**********8
发帖数: 2 | 1 Hi All:
I am DIYing my petition letter, I have a question if it is Okay to reiterate
the EB1A criteria in the letter? Any risk?
Any comments are greatly appreciated! (Sorry, I can not type Chinese in my
Linux machine, but feel free to reply in Chinese). The following is what I
have done:
At the end of the "Exceptional Authorship" section, I wrote:
In summary, the objective evidence regarding my exceptional authorship
presented in this section demonstrates that:
I have sustained international acclaim in my field of endeavor
(a) My articles were published in top international journals in my field of
endeavor
(b) My articles were cited by scientists from 18 countries in 4 continents
(c) The journals that cited my articles are a series of the most prestigious
international journals
My achievements have been recognized in my field of expertise, indicating
that I am one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top in my
field of endeavor
(a) My articles were published in the best (#1) ranked journals in my field
of endeavor
(b) My articles were cited by the best (#1) ranked journals in my field of
endeavor
(c) The citation of my articles far exceeds the ordinary level of
publication of my peers
(d) The citation of my articles is also much higher than the impact factor
of the best (#1) ranked journal in my field of endeavor
At the end of the "Significant Original Contributions" section, I wrote:
In summary, the evidence regarding my original contributions of major
significance presented in this section demonstrates that:
I have sustained international acclaim in my field of endeavor
(a) Scientists from 18 countries in 4 continents have recognized the
significance of my research by citing my work in their own research
(b) International scientists have either used my work as supporting evidence
in their own research or directly implemented my work in their own research
(c) Review articles written by international scientists have praised my work
as an important progress in the field of xxx engineering
(d) Independent scientists worldwide testified the significance of my
contributions in their publications and support letters
My achievements have been recognized in my field of expertise, indicating
that I am one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top in my
field of endeavor
(a) Articles that documented my original contributions of major significance
have been published in the best (#1) ranked journals in my field of
endeavor
(b) Articles that documented my original contributions of major significance
have been cited by the best (#1) ranked journals in my field of endeavor
(c) Articles that documented my original contributions of major significance
are ranked the top 10% most cited or better compared to articles published
by my peers
(d) Renowned experts specifically articulated how my contributions are of
major significance to the field, and they concluded that I am a top
researcher in my field
At the end of the "Judging the Work of Other Scientists", I wrote:
In summary, the objective evidence regarding my participation as a judge of
other scientists' work presented in this section demonstrates that:
I have sustained international acclaim in my field of endeavor
(a) I have been invited to serve as a session chair for an international
conference in my field
(b) I have been invited to review for international journals and conference
in my field of endeavor
(c) Scientists whose work I have reviewed are from more than 13 countries in
5 continents
My achievements have been recognized in my field of expertise, indicating
that I am one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top in my
field of endeavor
(a) The journals that I have reviewed for are top-ranking journals in my
field of endeavor
(b) I have been selected as a session chair and reviewer is due to my
reputation for excellence, my expertise, and my exceptionally scientific
accomplishment in my field
In the section of "The Significance of the Evidence", I wrote:
The objective evidence presented in the previous three sections has
demonstrated that I have met three of the ten criteria required for the EB1A
immigrant classification. The totality of the evidence has established that:
I have sustained international acclaim in my field of endeavor
(a) I have published articles in international journals ranked in the very
top in my field of endeavor, and my articles have been cited by scientists
worldwide with their work published in the most prestigious international
journals
(b) My original contributions of major significance have directly benefited
the work of scientists from 18 countries in my field of endeavor
(c) I have judged other scientists' work presented in multiple international
conferences and submitted to international journals
My achievements have been recognized in my field of expertise, indicating
that I am one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top in my
field of endeavor
(a) My articles have been published in the best (#1) ranked journals in my
field of endeavor, and the citation of my articles far exceeds the ordinary
level of publication of my peers
(b) Articles that documented my original contributions of major significance
are ranked the top 10% most cited articles including citations by the best
(#1) ranked journals in my field of endeavor
(c) I have judged the work submitted to top-ranking journals by scientists
worldwide, and I have been selected as a reviewer is due to my exceptionally
scientific accomplishment in my field
(d) Renowned experts specifically articulated how my contributions are of
major significance to the field, and they concluded that I am a top
researcher in my field | c****y
发帖数: 31 | 2 It is not necessary to restate the criteria again. This is my personal
experience with my 1A case approved recently. Try to limit your PL within 10
pages of writing on top of the exhibit list. The PL must be clear and
concise. | c**********8
发帖数: 2 | 3 Thanks for your reply. My letter is 25 pages, and about 11 pages are for "
contribution" section, 4 for authorship, and 4 for judging others' work.
Here are my concerns:
1, IO only has less than 30 min to go through the letter, so I guess they
try to look for evidence to match the EB1A criteria, I thought that
restating would help them to find the points quickly.
2, my major is engineering, and my citation is low (<80). So I am worried
about RFE for contribution section, therefore, I have more pages for the
contribution section, tried to explain how others used my work.
10
【在 c****y 的大作中提到】
: It is not necessary to restate the criteria again. This is my personal
: experience with my 1A case approved recently. Try to limit your PL within 10
: pages of writing on top of the exhibit list. The PL must be clear and
: concise.
| c****y
发帖数: 31 | 4 I do not know how much time does IO have, but I think your PL is too long.
In my opinion, restating the points is not helpful at all. The PL serves as
a road map to guide your audience to read your exhibit. Therefore, let the
evidence speaks for itself. My major is biology, but I think the citation is
not a critical component if you have other stuff to show. My citation is
bit higher than yours. The decision is based on a comprehensive review on
your file.
【在 c**********8 的大作中提到】
: Thanks for your reply. My letter is 25 pages, and about 11 pages are for "
: contribution" section, 4 for authorship, and 4 for judging others' work.
: Here are my concerns:
: 1, IO only has less than 30 min to go through the letter, so I guess they
: try to look for evidence to match the EB1A criteria, I thought that
: restating would help them to find the points quickly.
: 2, my major is engineering, and my citation is low (<80). So I am worried
: about RFE for contribution section, therefore, I have more pages for the
: contribution section, tried to explain how others used my work.
:
| A***e
发帖数: 186 | 5 我的律师写的很短，6页，最后一页半都是材料的列表，也不乏中间很多列举。整个信
就是热情洋溢洋溢的那种，我本来想改的，加强一下contribution，充实一下，发现我
的气场完全不对，后来放弃了。我找的两个朋友的成功的例子，都是三条一条条说清楚
的。我这个律师写的就完全不一样，开始我觉得很不适应，没有把亮点一一列出来；读
了几遍又觉得也是一种风格啊，看的人比较容易被感染啊，也不错。 | o********d
发帖数: 79 | 6 My letter was 24 page. Yours is probably fine.
【在 c**********8 的大作中提到】
: Thanks for your reply. My letter is 25 pages, and about 11 pages are for "
: contribution" section, 4 for authorship, and 4 for judging others' work.
: Here are my concerns:
: 1, IO only has less than 30 min to go through the letter, so I guess they
: try to look for evidence to match the EB1A criteria, I thought that
: restating would help them to find the points quickly.
: 2, my major is engineering, and my citation is low (<80). So I am worried
: about RFE for contribution section, therefore, I have more pages for the
: contribution section, tried to explain how others used my work.
:
|
|
