大奔，选下搭配# Fashion - 美丽时尚
m*e
1 楼
首先祝大家好运! 在版上看了好久, 很喜欢版上大家互相帮助打气的气氛, 现在也恳求
大家多出主意帮我打败RFE.
1. 申请时间表:
140 RD: 06/15/2012
PP RD: 07/06/2012
RFE ND: 07/16/2012
IO: 0450, 也是个director
------------------------------------------------------
2. 个人背景:
专业: 化学, 美国top学校博士和博士后(很鸡肋, 申绿卡好像一点用处也没有)
文章: 15 英文, 6一作; 1 ACS年会报告.
引用: 总的220+, 独立160+, 有一些文章大段地引用了我的工作; 独立引用递了申请后
又涨了点, 但是不多, 只有接近10个.
推荐信: 4us+1canada+1australia, 3独立的. 准备推荐信时还不流行不要找大牛, 所
以推荐人基本上都是大牛, 还有一个诺奖得主, 还好没有被悲剧地跟推荐人比.
审稿: 40+, 杂志有8个, 水平都还可以; 递了申请后又多了5个审稿和一个杂志.
------------------------------------------------------
3. 材料准备和结果:
请了版上口碑还不错的律师准备的材料, 写推荐信时小律师很认真地帮我狠抓了细节,
最后在大律师的强烈建议下claim了四项: authorship, review, contribution, 和
published materials in professional publications. 移民官只承认了authorship和
review.
律师给出的建议是回复时只针对contribution(唉, 悔不当初啊!), 下面是移民官关于
contribution的意见:
The petitioner has provided opinion letters by experts in the beneficiary's
field and evidence establishing moderate citation of the beneficiary's work.
However, this criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted
does not show that the beneficiary's contributions were considered to be of
major significance in the field of endeavor. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary's contributions satisfy this criterion, the
petitioner may submit:
- Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary's
contribution to the field.
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the currently consider the
beneficiary's work important.
- Additional testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss
the beneficiary's contributions of major significance. (See note below)
- Evidence that the beneficiary's major significance has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
- Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may include but is not limited to:
* Contracts with Companies using the beneficiary's products;
* Licensed technology being used by others;
* Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about‘the contribution and must explain, in detail, how the
contribution was “original” (not merely rep1icating the work of Others)
and of “major" Significance. General statements' regarding the importance
or the potential of the endeavors which are not supported by documentary
evidence are not sufficient.
最后移民官还强调即使RFE之后至少承认了三项, 还得按照两步法来证明sustained
acclaim和small percentage. 下面是原话:
Evaluate the evidence together in its entirety to make the 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.
------------------------------------------------------
4. RFE应对:
现在准备按律师的建议再写四五封新的独立推荐信和一个PS说明我的成就. 个人感觉
orginal和major signficance可以通过推荐信详细论证, 但是sustained acclaim和
small percentage到底该怎么样证明才最好呢? 想来想去好像只有如下几个少得可怜的
硬证据:
a. 有一篇文章是所在杂志(领域里h index排第二)当年的4th most accessed(<1%), 在
ISI关键词搜索出的900+文章中引用排第六.
b. 还有一篇文章用ISI可以查出是所在杂志(领域里h index排第二)当年的3rd most
cited(<1%).
大家能帮我参谋一下还有哪些可以挖掘的方面吗? 还有移民官批评说"moderate
citation"需要反驳吗? 该怎么反驳好呢?
在此先万分感谢了, 并祝大家心想事成!
大家多出主意帮我打败RFE.
1. 申请时间表:
140 RD: 06/15/2012
PP RD: 07/06/2012
RFE ND: 07/16/2012
IO: 0450, 也是个director
------------------------------------------------------
2. 个人背景:
专业: 化学, 美国top学校博士和博士后(很鸡肋, 申绿卡好像一点用处也没有)
文章: 15 英文, 6一作; 1 ACS年会报告.
引用: 总的220+, 独立160+, 有一些文章大段地引用了我的工作; 独立引用递了申请后
又涨了点, 但是不多, 只有接近10个.
推荐信: 4us+1canada+1australia, 3独立的. 准备推荐信时还不流行不要找大牛, 所
以推荐人基本上都是大牛, 还有一个诺奖得主, 还好没有被悲剧地跟推荐人比.
审稿: 40+, 杂志有8个, 水平都还可以; 递了申请后又多了5个审稿和一个杂志.
------------------------------------------------------
3. 材料准备和结果:
请了版上口碑还不错的律师准备的材料, 写推荐信时小律师很认真地帮我狠抓了细节,
最后在大律师的强烈建议下claim了四项: authorship, review, contribution, 和
published materials in professional publications. 移民官只承认了authorship和
review.
律师给出的建议是回复时只针对contribution(唉, 悔不当初啊!), 下面是移民官关于
contribution的意见:
The petitioner has provided opinion letters by experts in the beneficiary's
field and evidence establishing moderate citation of the beneficiary's work.
However, this criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted
does not show that the beneficiary's contributions were considered to be of
major significance in the field of endeavor. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary's contributions satisfy this criterion, the
petitioner may submit:
- Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary's
contribution to the field.
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the currently consider the
beneficiary's work important.
- Additional testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss
the beneficiary's contributions of major significance. (See note below)
- Evidence that the beneficiary's major significance has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
- Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may include but is not limited to:
* Contracts with Companies using the beneficiary's products;
* Licensed technology being used by others;
* Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about‘the contribution and must explain, in detail, how the
contribution was “original” (not merely rep1icating the work of Others)
and of “major" Significance. General statements' regarding the importance
or the potential of the endeavors which are not supported by documentary
evidence are not sufficient.
最后移民官还强调即使RFE之后至少承认了三项, 还得按照两步法来证明sustained
acclaim和small percentage. 下面是原话:
Evaluate the evidence together in its entirety to make the 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.
------------------------------------------------------
4. RFE应对:
现在准备按律师的建议再写四五封新的独立推荐信和一个PS说明我的成就. 个人感觉
orginal和major signficance可以通过推荐信详细论证, 但是sustained acclaim和
small percentage到底该怎么样证明才最好呢? 想来想去好像只有如下几个少得可怜的
硬证据:
a. 有一篇文章是所在杂志(领域里h index排第二)当年的4th most accessed(<1%), 在
ISI关键词搜索出的900+文章中引用排第六.
b. 还有一篇文章用ISI可以查出是所在杂志(领域里h index排第二)当年的3rd most
cited(<1%).
大家能帮我参谋一下还有哪些可以挖掘的方面吗? 还有移民官批评说"moderate
citation"需要反驳吗? 该怎么反驳好呢?
在此先万分感谢了, 并祝大家心想事成!
