[合集] Sad...EB1B RFE even 3 criteria met# Immigration - 落地生根
r*s
1 楼
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mitbbsll1 (banana) 于 (Mon Mar 21 16:58:00 2011, 美东) 提到:
Sad, need to work on this again.
Just got the RFE.
Original claimed: Original contribution, publication
In my original contribution part, put additional evidence such as review (
only 1) for a journal, and written by others...
Criteria met: Publication, review, written by others.
However, original contribution is not met, because of international
recognition. The IO critiqued on my recommendation letters!
Help!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
eccentric (eccentric) 于 (Mon Mar 21 17:37:33 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
pasa123 (yy) 于 (Mon Mar 21 17:45:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
Bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
YLZ (YLZ) 于 (Mon Mar 21 17:47:23 2011, 美东) 提到:
blessing
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jobHunter08 (itJobHunter) 于 (Mon Mar 21 18:13:22 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
windbells (windbell) 于 (Mon Mar 21 18:20:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
最近好像都这样。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cococa (可可) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:15:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
最近tsc该政策了。痛苦啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
rapid (John Oldman) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:20:15 2011, 美东) 提到:
什么意思？
说你original contribution 不符合？
但是符合其他3条？
有2条就可以过了，还要求什么？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cococa (可可) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:25:16 2011, 美东) 提到:
他只claim了二条啊，只过了publication啊。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
rapid (John Oldman) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:29:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
lz的title说even 3 criteria met.
我不明白他说的这3条是什么。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
MarchFourth (一个人+一个人) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:31:49 2011, 美东) 提到:
Bless~~~~~~~~~
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jocelyni (Jocelyn) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:43:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
是不是和我情况一样，没有claim的也被认可了？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
rapid (John Oldman) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:56:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
那被认可，算通过了吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
windbells (windbell) 于 (Mon Mar 21 21:57:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
3条都met
但是totality不行
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
iamqnju (iamqnju) 于 (Mon Mar 21 22:10:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
longboat (longboat) 于 (Mon Mar 21 23:40:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless! In your recommendation letters, did you stress on the international
recognition?
发信人: mitbbsll1 (banana), 信区: Immigration
标 题: Sad...EB1B RFE even 3 criteria met
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Mar 21 16:58:00 2011, 美东)
Sad, need to work on this again.
Just got the RFE.
Original claimed: Original contribution, publication
In my original contribution part, put additional evidence such as review (
only 1) for a journal, and written by others...
Criteria met: Publication, review, written by others.
However, original contribution is not met, because of international
recognition. The IO critiqued on my recommendation letters!
Help!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mitbbsll1 (banana) 于 (Tue Mar 22 10:09:09 2011, 美东) 提到:
Sorry can't type in Chinese here and for the confusion in my original post.
In my petition letter, I only claimed original contribution and publication,
using judge of others and media report as supporting evidence for
contribution.
However, the IO agreed on media report, judge, and publication, but not on
contribution.
S/he thinks that the recommendation letters are vague.
"these letter are vague, and their comments are not supported by the
evidence. For example, Dr. xx states, "Cell Metabolism ranks 2nd out of 105
leading journals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism and only
publishes work of exceptional significance. Publication in Cell Metabolism
convincingly supports Dr. Me's significant contribution to his field." Yet,
the information about this publication, which was submitted with the
petition, does not define "exceptional significance," nor does it state that
it only publishes work of this caliber.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's contributions are
original, the petitioner may submit:
Objective documentary evidence of the beneficiary's contribution to their
academic field.
Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the
beneficiary's work original.
Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary'
s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to their academic
field. (must provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary's
contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was "original
" (not merely replicating the work of others). General statements regarding
the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.)
Evidence that the beneficiary's original contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others..."
Background: articles 13 (IF 5-19), meeting presentations 12.
Citation: >130 in ISI, >170 in Google scholar
Research Associate
In my petition letter, I did analysis of citation such as country
distribution, map. Seems the IO ignored this.
In my recommendation letters (7, 4 independent, 1 from UK, 1 from Austria),
they did mention my work is the first one..., international recognition.
Any suggestion is appreciated.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
longboat (longboat) 于 (Tue Mar 22 10:20:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
It seems that the IO gave you very nice instructions on what kinds of
evidence he wants to see. You might have to dig deep into your materials
especially your citations and media reports since they are documentary
evidence, and re-organize them to show "international" and "outstanding".
Letters from people who cited your paper should also be helpful.
发信人: mitbbsll1 (banana), 信区: Immigration
标 题: Re: Sad...EB1B RFE even 3 criteria met
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Mar 22 10:09:09 2011, 美东)
Sorry can't type in Chinese here and for the confusion in my original post.
In my petition letter, I only claimed original contribution and publication,
using judge of others and media report as supporting evidence for
contribution.
However, the IO agreed on media report, judge, and publication, but not on
contribution.
S/he thinks that the recommendation letters are vague.
"these letter are vague, and their comments are not supported by the
evidence. For example, Dr. xx states, "Cell Metabolism ranks 2nd out of 105
leading journals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism and only
publishes work of exceptional significance. Publication in Cell Metabolism
convincingly supports Dr. Me's significant contribution to his field." Yet,
the information about this publication, which was submitted with the
petition, does not define "exceptional significance," nor does it state that
it only publishes work of this caliber.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's contributions are
original, the petitioner may submit:
Objective documentary evidence of the beneficiary's contribution to their
academic field.
Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the
beneficiary's work original.
Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary'
s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to their academic
field. (must provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary's
contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was "original
" (not merely replicating the work of others). General statements regarding
the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.)
Evidence that the beneficiary's original contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others..."
Background: articles 13 (IF 5-19), meeting presentations 12.
Citation: >130 in ISI, >170 in Google scholar
Research Associate
In my petition letter, I did analysis of citation such as country
distribution, map. Seems the IO ignored this.
In my recommendation letters (7, 4 independent, 1 from UK, 1 from Austria),
they did mention my work is the first one..., international recognition.
Any suggestion is appreciated.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
damayimei (重症拖延症患者) 于 (Tue Mar 22 10:22:16 2011, 美东) 提到:
这IO脑子进水了，楼主运气比较差，好好再准备一下RFE，应该能过。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
zjhzhou (hehe) 于 (Tue Mar 22 11:46:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless
mitbbsll1 (banana) 于 (Mon Mar 21 16:58:00 2011, 美东) 提到:
Sad, need to work on this again.
Just got the RFE.
Original claimed: Original contribution, publication
In my original contribution part, put additional evidence such as review (
only 1) for a journal, and written by others...
Criteria met: Publication, review, written by others.
However, original contribution is not met, because of international
recognition. The IO critiqued on my recommendation letters!
Help!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
eccentric (eccentric) 于 (Mon Mar 21 17:37:33 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
pasa123 (yy) 于 (Mon Mar 21 17:45:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
Bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
YLZ (YLZ) 于 (Mon Mar 21 17:47:23 2011, 美东) 提到:
blessing
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jobHunter08 (itJobHunter) 于 (Mon Mar 21 18:13:22 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
windbells (windbell) 于 (Mon Mar 21 18:20:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
最近好像都这样。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cococa (可可) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:15:38 2011, 美东) 提到:
最近tsc该政策了。痛苦啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
rapid (John Oldman) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:20:15 2011, 美东) 提到:
什么意思？
说你original contribution 不符合？
但是符合其他3条？
有2条就可以过了，还要求什么？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cococa (可可) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:25:16 2011, 美东) 提到:
他只claim了二条啊，只过了publication啊。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
rapid (John Oldman) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:29:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
lz的title说even 3 criteria met.
我不明白他说的这3条是什么。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
MarchFourth (一个人+一个人) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:31:49 2011, 美东) 提到:
Bless~~~~~~~~~
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jocelyni (Jocelyn) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:43:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
是不是和我情况一样，没有claim的也被认可了？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
rapid (John Oldman) 于 (Mon Mar 21 20:56:50 2011, 美东) 提到:
那被认可，算通过了吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
windbells (windbell) 于 (Mon Mar 21 21:57:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
3条都met
但是totality不行
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
iamqnju (iamqnju) 于 (Mon Mar 21 22:10:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
longboat (longboat) 于 (Mon Mar 21 23:40:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless! In your recommendation letters, did you stress on the international
recognition?
发信人: mitbbsll1 (banana), 信区: Immigration
标 题: Sad...EB1B RFE even 3 criteria met
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Mar 21 16:58:00 2011, 美东)
Sad, need to work on this again.
Just got the RFE.
Original claimed: Original contribution, publication
In my original contribution part, put additional evidence such as review (
only 1) for a journal, and written by others...
Criteria met: Publication, review, written by others.
However, original contribution is not met, because of international
recognition. The IO critiqued on my recommendation letters!
Help!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mitbbsll1 (banana) 于 (Tue Mar 22 10:09:09 2011, 美东) 提到:
Sorry can't type in Chinese here and for the confusion in my original post.
In my petition letter, I only claimed original contribution and publication,
using judge of others and media report as supporting evidence for
contribution.
However, the IO agreed on media report, judge, and publication, but not on
contribution.
S/he thinks that the recommendation letters are vague.
"these letter are vague, and their comments are not supported by the
evidence. For example, Dr. xx states, "Cell Metabolism ranks 2nd out of 105
leading journals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism and only
publishes work of exceptional significance. Publication in Cell Metabolism
convincingly supports Dr. Me's significant contribution to his field." Yet,
the information about this publication, which was submitted with the
petition, does not define "exceptional significance," nor does it state that
it only publishes work of this caliber.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's contributions are
original, the petitioner may submit:
Objective documentary evidence of the beneficiary's contribution to their
academic field.
Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the
beneficiary's work original.
Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary'
s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to their academic
field. (must provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary's
contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was "original
" (not merely replicating the work of others). General statements regarding
the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.)
Evidence that the beneficiary's original contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others..."
Background: articles 13 (IF 5-19), meeting presentations 12.
Citation: >130 in ISI, >170 in Google scholar
Research Associate
In my petition letter, I did analysis of citation such as country
distribution, map. Seems the IO ignored this.
In my recommendation letters (7, 4 independent, 1 from UK, 1 from Austria),
they did mention my work is the first one..., international recognition.
Any suggestion is appreciated.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
longboat (longboat) 于 (Tue Mar 22 10:20:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
It seems that the IO gave you very nice instructions on what kinds of
evidence he wants to see. You might have to dig deep into your materials
especially your citations and media reports since they are documentary
evidence, and re-organize them to show "international" and "outstanding".
Letters from people who cited your paper should also be helpful.
发信人: mitbbsll1 (banana), 信区: Immigration
标 题: Re: Sad...EB1B RFE even 3 criteria met
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Mar 22 10:09:09 2011, 美东)
Sorry can't type in Chinese here and for the confusion in my original post.
In my petition letter, I only claimed original contribution and publication,
using judge of others and media report as supporting evidence for
contribution.
However, the IO agreed on media report, judge, and publication, but not on
contribution.
S/he thinks that the recommendation letters are vague.
"these letter are vague, and their comments are not supported by the
evidence. For example, Dr. xx states, "Cell Metabolism ranks 2nd out of 105
leading journals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism and only
publishes work of exceptional significance. Publication in Cell Metabolism
convincingly supports Dr. Me's significant contribution to his field." Yet,
the information about this publication, which was submitted with the
petition, does not define "exceptional significance," nor does it state that
it only publishes work of this caliber.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's contributions are
original, the petitioner may submit:
Objective documentary evidence of the beneficiary's contribution to their
academic field.
Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the
beneficiary's work original.
Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary'
s original scientific or scholarly research contributions to their academic
field. (must provide as much detail as possible about the beneficiary's
contribution and must explain, in detail, how the contribution was "original
" (not merely replicating the work of others). General statements regarding
the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.)
Evidence that the beneficiary's original contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others..."
Background: articles 13 (IF 5-19), meeting presentations 12.
Citation: >130 in ISI, >170 in Google scholar
Research Associate
In my petition letter, I did analysis of citation such as country
distribution, map. Seems the IO ignored this.
In my recommendation letters (7, 4 independent, 1 from UK, 1 from Austria),
they did mention my work is the first one..., international recognition.
Any suggestion is appreciated.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
damayimei (重症拖延症患者) 于 (Tue Mar 22 10:22:16 2011, 美东) 提到:
这IO脑子进水了，楼主运气比较差，好好再准备一下RFE，应该能过。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
zjhzhou (hehe) 于 (Tue Mar 22 11:46:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
bless