|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
j*********9
发帖数: 1 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 I140 讨论区 】
发信人: jeffrey2019 (), 信区: I140
标 题: 求建议指点-答复EB1B NOID
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Sep 7 15:01:37 2019, 美东)
刚收到 EB1B NOID, NSC 0150; 感觉公司律师/paralegal不可靠，决定多靠自己努力
一把。 NOID说 I met 3 criteria: publication, review and contribution; 在
final merit judgement, 说 the material does not prove I am strong in any of
these three criteria and not internationally recognized.
Basic credential: EE Phd, Papers 17, mostly 1st author and published in top
journals and conferences in the field, Review 72 times for 11 different
journals (most of them are prestigious journals/conferences); Patents: 2
granted, and 8 filed; Citation: 60, only roughly 30 are independent
citations. 5 Recommendation letters from 4 independent references and my PhD
advisor.
欢迎任何建议，我还不清楚该怎么准备？需要Withdraw么？多谢多谢
The original NOID letter words are attached below:
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the
beneficiary has met the following regulatory criteria:
"1 Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel,
as the judge of the work
of others in the same or an allied academic field.
2 Evidence of the alien‘s original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field
3 Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in
scholarly journals with
international circulation) in the academic field
The record shows that the beneficiary served as reviewer in the academic
field, but the evidence does not establish that his participation in the
widespread peer-review process (a routine process in the field relying on
many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects sustained
acclaim. Thus, the submitted evidence merely meets the plain language of
this criterion.
You submitted several letters of support written by professionals to
establish the beneficiary’s original
scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field. Yet
the beneficiary’s scientific or scholarly research contributions to the
academic field must be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and
objective evidence. USClS may in its discretion use such letters as advisory
opinions submitted by expert witnesses, but USCIS is ultimately responsible
for making the final determination of the beneficiary’s eligibility. See
Matter ofCaron International, 19 mm Dec. 791,
795 (Comm, 1988). Please also note that letters alone are insufficient to
prove the beneficiary's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic field.
The record shows that the beneficiary published several articles papers with
scholarly journals/conferences in the field. But it is worthwhile to note
that publications and presentations are not as reliable measurement in
determining researcher’s influence on the academic field as frequent,
independent citations of his work. Indeed, USCIS considers the number of
independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in determining the
beneficiary’s original research
contributions to the academic field. Publishing alone may serve as evidence
of originality, but it is difficult to determine published work‘s
importance or influence if there is little to no evidence that other
scholars have relied on researcher‘s findings. The record show that the
beneficiary‘s work has
been cited mere 60 times. Therefore. USCIS has concluded that, though
evincing original research contributions, they do not establish that the
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic
field.
The evidence of record shows that the beneficiary meets the plain language
of three regulatory criteria,
but it does not show that he is strong in any of them. You have proven that
the beneficiary is a
promising and respected researcher who has secured some degree of
recognition for his work, but, in
the aggregate, the record stops short of elevating him to the level of one
who is recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field." | d*******u
发帖数: 5337 | 2 eb1b应该重点说现在的工作对社会的影响，而不是文章的引用，推荐人最好附上简历 | r******t
发帖数: 8967 | | t**********o
发帖数: 1 | 4 不好意思，刚刚看到楼主的确是nsc。那这个可能是nsc的常见noid模板了，说白了就是
你的PL没能说服人家。公司的律师的确经常很不靠谱，看看能不能从你的研究的应用上
来说说？
———
你这个noid信似乎是模板。我猜一下，你是nsc？前几天我们公司律师刚给我转过一个
类似的noid，和你的情况差不多。我的感觉是律师准的的PL出了问题（不过没看到PL不
好说） |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
