今天收到了RFE了，承认了publication and review# Immigration - 落地生根
I*1
1 楼
今天刚刚收到USCIS RFE的信了(IO: #1136)， 我提交材料的时候claim了Publication,
Review, and Contributions. 承认了publication and review. Contribution 部
分也没有明确说has not been met， 但是要求提供一些材料. 具体的如下：
(1) 我当时提交了7封推荐信来自5个国家， 其中独立推荐信有5封， IO特意把其中
三封独立推荐信中的一些段落挑了出来，让我提供更加具体的证据：
The letters describes work that “serves as the guidelines”, “has
extensive application” in various fields, “has been widely used in many
metallurgy processes”, “significantly speeded up the semiconductor
industry” etc. While the beneficiary’s work may have been well received in
the field, the record does not contain corroborative evidence of the
beneficiary’s work being directly attributable to speeding up the entire
semiconductor industry, for example, being implemented on a widespread scale
, successfully patented and commercialized, or other such indicators of
original contributions to the field of major significance.
(2) 就我的citation进行了评论, 虽然没有说我的引用少(提交材料时引用135，包
括自引和他引)， 但是说别人引用我的文章并不能说明我工作就是of major
significance, 因为引用我文章的作者也引用了其他人的文章. 这种情况好像以前从来
没有出现过啊。
“The fact that other researchers have cited or referenced the beneficiary’
s work in their work, often along with citing the work of many others, in
their own work is not necessarily indicative of original contributions to
the field of major significance. As well, it appears that many of examples
of the beneficiary’s work being cited by others included numerous
references to other researcher’s work; and the record does not establish
that any work used or cited by another researcher is work that is indicative
of contributions to the field of major significance.
我在论述contribution时， 特别论述了一个巴西的教授在他的论文中把用我的数学模
型计算的结果和用Albert Einstein and William Sutherland模型计算的结果进行了比
较。两者计算结果非常相似。巴西人的文章在2011年发在一个不错的期刊上， 而且有
媒体报道。但是IO就这个问题进行了批判， 总之就是说这个巴西人的文章没有被引用
，所以并不能说明我的工作有多牛逼。这是什么逻辑啊！
“The beneficiary’s brief also explains that his work have been compared to
Albert Einstein and William Sutherland in a paper published by Prof.***of
the University of Sao Paulo, and that this is “concrete and undoubted”
evidence that the beneficiary’s has made contributions of major
significance to the field. It is noted that, according to Google Scholar,
this paper does not appear to have received any citations. Regardless, this
paper is not authored by the beneficiary, and any significance it has would
be primarily reflective of the author’s work”
(3) 主要说我的文章的引用没有我的推荐人的引用多。这个NND推荐人都是老教授，
牛逼教授， 要是我能跟他们比我还要EB1A吗？我不直接EB1B了！然后说那么推荐人的
文章引用更能说明他们是be more indicative of contributions to the field of
major significance than the citation of the beneficiary.
然后说我可以提供下面材料, the petitioner may submit：
(1) Objective evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution to the field;
(2) Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important;
(3) Support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary’s
contributions of major significance;
(4) Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contributions has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited:
(5) Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is no limited to:
(a) Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
(b) Licensed technology being used by others;
(c) Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field.
总体感觉其实IO是非常认真看了我的材料。站在他们的立场上提出这些问题我觉得并没
有故意刁难我的意思。但是有的材料提供起来很不容易。希望大家看了以后能给我一些
意见。给了84天让我回复RFE。非常感谢！
忘了说我的背景：
专业MSE,材料提交时：
(1) English papers 10, (4 first author), Chinese papers 13 (3 first authors).
可补充材料： 一篇提交材料时接收的一作文章已经发表了， 一篇二作的invited review提交了， 在回复RFE时应该可以被接受。
（2）Review 33 times for 29 manuscripts.
可补充材料： 多了2 manuscripts, reviewed 4 times
(3) Citations increase from 135 to about 150
(4) 有两个三作的中文专利但是提交材料的时候没有用上去， 现在补充材料的时候是否可以用？
Review, and Contributions. 承认了publication and review. Contribution 部
分也没有明确说has not been met， 但是要求提供一些材料. 具体的如下：
(1) 我当时提交了7封推荐信来自5个国家， 其中独立推荐信有5封， IO特意把其中
三封独立推荐信中的一些段落挑了出来，让我提供更加具体的证据：
The letters describes work that “serves as the guidelines”, “has
extensive application” in various fields, “has been widely used in many
metallurgy processes”, “significantly speeded up the semiconductor
industry” etc. While the beneficiary’s work may have been well received in
the field, the record does not contain corroborative evidence of the
beneficiary’s work being directly attributable to speeding up the entire
semiconductor industry, for example, being implemented on a widespread scale
, successfully patented and commercialized, or other such indicators of
original contributions to the field of major significance.
(2) 就我的citation进行了评论, 虽然没有说我的引用少(提交材料时引用135，包
括自引和他引)， 但是说别人引用我的文章并不能说明我工作就是of major
significance, 因为引用我文章的作者也引用了其他人的文章. 这种情况好像以前从来
没有出现过啊。
“The fact that other researchers have cited or referenced the beneficiary’
s work in their work, often along with citing the work of many others, in
their own work is not necessarily indicative of original contributions to
the field of major significance. As well, it appears that many of examples
of the beneficiary’s work being cited by others included numerous
references to other researcher’s work; and the record does not establish
that any work used or cited by another researcher is work that is indicative
of contributions to the field of major significance.
我在论述contribution时， 特别论述了一个巴西的教授在他的论文中把用我的数学模
型计算的结果和用Albert Einstein and William Sutherland模型计算的结果进行了比
较。两者计算结果非常相似。巴西人的文章在2011年发在一个不错的期刊上， 而且有
媒体报道。但是IO就这个问题进行了批判， 总之就是说这个巴西人的文章没有被引用
，所以并不能说明我的工作有多牛逼。这是什么逻辑啊！
“The beneficiary’s brief also explains that his work have been compared to
Albert Einstein and William Sutherland in a paper published by Prof.***of
the University of Sao Paulo, and that this is “concrete and undoubted”
evidence that the beneficiary’s has made contributions of major
significance to the field. It is noted that, according to Google Scholar,
this paper does not appear to have received any citations. Regardless, this
paper is not authored by the beneficiary, and any significance it has would
be primarily reflective of the author’s work”
(3) 主要说我的文章的引用没有我的推荐人的引用多。这个NND推荐人都是老教授，
牛逼教授， 要是我能跟他们比我还要EB1A吗？我不直接EB1B了！然后说那么推荐人的
文章引用更能说明他们是be more indicative of contributions to the field of
major significance than the citation of the beneficiary.
然后说我可以提供下面材料, the petitioner may submit：
(1) Objective evidence of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution to the field;
(2) Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important;
(3) Support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary’s
contributions of major significance;
(4) Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contributions has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited:
(5) Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is no limited to:
(a) Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
(b) Licensed technology being used by others;
(c) Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field.
总体感觉其实IO是非常认真看了我的材料。站在他们的立场上提出这些问题我觉得并没
有故意刁难我的意思。但是有的材料提供起来很不容易。希望大家看了以后能给我一些
意见。给了84天让我回复RFE。非常感谢！
忘了说我的背景：
专业MSE,材料提交时：
(1) English papers 10, (4 first author), Chinese papers 13 (3 first authors).
可补充材料： 一篇提交材料时接收的一作文章已经发表了， 一篇二作的invited review提交了， 在回复RFE时应该可以被接受。
（2）Review 33 times for 29 manuscripts.
可补充材料： 多了2 manuscripts, reviewed 4 times
(3) Citations increase from 135 to about 150
(4) 有两个三作的中文专利但是提交材料的时候没有用上去， 现在补充材料的时候是否可以用？
