判例2: 引用一定要给全文, 433引用悲剧的教训# Immigration - 落地生根
l*i
1 楼
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B2%20-%20Aliens%20with%20Extraordinary
In this case, the petitioner claims that his body of work has been cited to
434 times. The petitioner submitted a "citation table" summarizing the
number of cites to hls English and Chinese research papers.
The source of this information compiled by the petitioner is not identified
and copies of the citing articles were not submitted or specifically
identified with an accompanying index.
the "citation table" and search results from Google.com
submitted by the petitioner did not include copies of the citing articles or
an accompanying index specifically identifying those articles. In this case
, the deficient citation information submitted by
the petitioner is not sufficient to demonstrate that any of his research
articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
google.com 的不足为信:
The petitioner also submitted search results from Google.com, but again,
copies of the citing articles were not submitted or pecifically identified
with an accompanying index. Rather, the petitioner simply searched for his
own name at Google.com and for the term "retina," and submitted the results.
The Google.com results pulled up articles coauthored by the petitioner but
the links below the individual articles, which will list the number of
citations when there are any, do not identify the citing articles. While the
search results may include several hits for the petitioner's name and the
term "retina," without submitting a list of all of the results, we cannot
conclude that any of them represent citations of the ~etitioner'sa rticles.
In this case, the petitioner claims that his body of work has been cited to
434 times. The petitioner submitted a "citation table" summarizing the
number of cites to hls English and Chinese research papers.
The source of this information compiled by the petitioner is not identified
and copies of the citing articles were not submitted or specifically
identified with an accompanying index.
the "citation table" and search results from Google.com
submitted by the petitioner did not include copies of the citing articles or
an accompanying index specifically identifying those articles. In this case
, the deficient citation information submitted by
the petitioner is not sufficient to demonstrate that any of his research
articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
google.com 的不足为信:
The petitioner also submitted search results from Google.com, but again,
copies of the citing articles were not submitted or pecifically identified
with an accompanying index. Rather, the petitioner simply searched for his
own name at Google.com and for the term "retina," and submitted the results.
The Google.com results pulled up articles coauthored by the petitioner but
the links below the individual articles, which will list the number of
citations when there are any, do not identify the citing articles. While the
search results may include several hits for the petitioner's name and the
term "retina," without submitting a list of all of the results, we cannot
conclude that any of them represent citations of the ~etitioner'sa rticles.
