Eb1a DIY pp NSC intend to deny , 求建议# Immigration - 落地生根
c*k
1 楼
今天收到了信
内容如下：
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has
met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial final demonstrated
that the beneficiary possess the high level of exoertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed " sustained"
national acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may have
achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a
comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and,
* Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is out of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
The evidence indicates the petitioner has conducted peer reviews. With
regards to the petitioner's work as a peer reviewer, the fact that respected
scientific journals and organizations are peer-reviewed and receive
hundreds of manuscripts for potential publication that must be peer-reviewed
cannot ignored. It is a logical conclusion that scientific journals must
rely on many scientists to review these manuscripts, making this a routine
activity for scientists. Therefore, peer-review is not, by itself,
indicative of, or consistent with being in the very top of a field or
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the
petitioner is in the very top of the field or has sustained national or
international acclaim.
自己的背景如下：
5篇 英文作者。（包括一片nature 是20个作者中第4作者，这篇文章有22个媒体报道，
nature 封面文章，推荐文章。 其他四篇都是第一作者，并且都是本领域的top 杂志）
。 总共有200 篇独立次citations。nature 一篇2年有140 个应用。还有一片top 文章
有35 篇独立引用 文章都是近4年发表的。 review 了20 篇文章为8个不同的杂志。
review 的文章的杂志在本专业有6个是top 10 杂志。
现在我需要提供什么证明？毫无头绪。能不能给个建议。
以前说过的理由要再提吗？还是只是针对review 文章这一项？
谢谢大家的建议
内容如下：
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has
met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial final demonstrated
that the beneficiary possess the high level of exoertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed " sustained"
national acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may have
achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a
comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and,
* Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is out of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
The evidence indicates the petitioner has conducted peer reviews. With
regards to the petitioner's work as a peer reviewer, the fact that respected
scientific journals and organizations are peer-reviewed and receive
hundreds of manuscripts for potential publication that must be peer-reviewed
cannot ignored. It is a logical conclusion that scientific journals must
rely on many scientists to review these manuscripts, making this a routine
activity for scientists. Therefore, peer-review is not, by itself,
indicative of, or consistent with being in the very top of a field or
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the
petitioner is in the very top of the field or has sustained national or
international acclaim.
自己的背景如下：
5篇 英文作者。（包括一片nature 是20个作者中第4作者，这篇文章有22个媒体报道，
nature 封面文章，推荐文章。 其他四篇都是第一作者，并且都是本领域的top 杂志）
。 总共有200 篇独立次citations。nature 一篇2年有140 个应用。还有一片top 文章
有35 篇独立引用 文章都是近4年发表的。 review 了20 篇文章为8个不同的杂志。
review 的文章的杂志在本专业有6个是top 10 杂志。
现在我需要提供什么证明？毫无头绪。能不能给个建议。
以前说过的理由要再提吗？还是只是针对review 文章这一项？
谢谢大家的建议
