|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c**********e
发帖数: 616 | 1 tsc rfe
io: XM1291
i140 pp, 昨天刚收到rfe， 质疑 original contribution， 原话是
The petitioner references the beneficiary's xx peer-reviewed articles,
which have received xxx citations as evidence that the beneficiary's
research has had an impact on the field. However, the beneficiary's field is
research-driven, and the very nature of research is to add to the general
pool of knowledge in the field. Research is a collaborative effort, and
generally, researchers publish or present the results of their research to
disseminate it to others in the field. In order to meet this criterion, the
beneficiary's contributions must not only be original, but also have been of
major significance to the field as a whole.
Publication alone may serve as evidence of originality, but a particular
article cannot be considered influential if the evidence does not show that
other researchers have relied upon the authors' findings. In addition, while
a moderate amount of citations to the beneficiary's work demonstrates
awareness of the work and its value, not every researcher who performs
moderately valuable research has inherently made. au original contribution
to the academic field as a whole. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit
evidence to demonstrate that the amount of citations is indicative of major
significance to the field.
The petitioner indicated that some of the citations are "notable." However,
there is no evidence in the recMd to demonstrate the reason the citation are
notable. The record does not contain letters that evaluate and clarify the
reason the citations are notable or the impact the "notable" citations had
on the field as a whole. The evidence must provide evidence to establish
that these citations have been of major significance to the field as a whole
.
The petitioner submitted an unprecedented AAO decision which supported
references letters and a record.of dozens of citations as evidence of major
significance but the petitioner did not submit evidence that USCIS is
compelled to· accept a certain number of citations as evidence of major
significance to the field for each case. Evidence must demonstrate that the
beneficiary's contributions are not only original, but that they are of
major significance in the field. The evidence does not demonstrate the major
significance of the beneficiary's original contributions.
背景
genetics field
publication： 20+
first（co） author: 5
citation: 220+
知道自己的case不是很强，纠结在要不要reply rfe
w 家律师说这个io 很tough，不好回复，他们回复了10个都拒绝了。
想问下板上有没有同学被这个io rfe 回复经验 | c*****s
发帖数: 104 | 2 这个条件可以试一试回复。感觉你的律师水平不行呀。
个人建议：
1. 有没有会议摘要和报告的证据呢？这个是很重要的一个对你的领域做的贡献；
2. 220的引用在这个领域应该不错了。把别人引用你的文章提到你的句子highlight出
来，尤其是高度表扬的话，证明别人认为你对领域做出了贡献；
3. 不知道你有几个独立的推荐人？建议再找两个独立推荐人，推荐信写的漂亮点。另
外，如果有你参加审稿的杂志，让编辑给你写个推荐信，有加分。 | c**********e
发帖数: 616 | 3 谢谢你的回复，我知道自己的case不是很强，律师说这个io是个杀手，我search了一下
，没有发现关于这个io特别多的信息。我现在纠结在是要回复还是撤回重新申请。2017
年的时候nsc提交过一次，碰到著名的0024，结果回复了也没有过。所以确实很纠结。
另外有个问题就是律师说我再提交的evidence只能是在我提交140之前的，而我的同事
和我说他被rfe的时候，他提交了他当时的citation，从提交i140到rfe，他的citation
涨了好多，似乎没有什么毛病。 | s*****y
发帖数: 22 | 4
2017
citation
1,可以提交当时的，不一定非要提交140之前的。
2，把同领域其他人引用你的研究highlight出来，说明你的研究对别人的研究起到了重
要的启发作用，这也是contribution吧。
【在 c**********e 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢你的回复，我知道自己的case不是很强，律师说这个io是个杀手，我search了一下
: ，没有发现关于这个io特别多的信息。我现在纠结在是要回复还是撤回重新申请。2017
: 年的时候nsc提交过一次，碰到著名的0024，结果回复了也没有过。所以确实很纠结。
: 另外有个问题就是律师说我再提交的evidence只能是在我提交140之前的，而我的同事
: 和我说他被rfe的时候，他提交了他当时的citation，从提交i140到rfe，他的citation
: 涨了好多，似乎没有什么毛病。
| c**********e
发帖数: 616 | 5 UP UP UP
有被同一个io rfe的童鞋吗 | m***a
发帖数: 1 | 6 律师比较有经验 听律师的
板上的人能做过几个申请 | p******4
发帖数: 1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
