NSC EB1A 二进宫 RFE 求助！！# Immigration - 落地生根
k*9
1 楼
NSC EB1A 二进宫了。第一次被0002 NOID后惨剧。
事隔3个多月后 再次投了。
这次没有遇到0002， 但是还是被RFE了 （IO是0444）。
把握的情况贴出来 请大家帮我出些注意，非常感谢啊。
背景：
美国PhD，claim老三样：contribution， authorship，review
文章16（一中文） 一作11， 影响因子都再13～4 。
引用320＋
review 45次 for 8 journals and 1 conference
RFE：
authorship 和review 满足了， 说没看到contribution中的 major significance
提出了3条：
第一，IO说在推荐信中，“none of them establish that the petitioner has
already make contributions of major significance in his field. … Though the
writers clearly think highly of the petitioner, the evidence does not
establish that the level of interest by the scientific community is
indicative of a contribution of major significance, either from one of the
petitioner’s publications or from the totally of this work to date.
The petitioner emphasizes that he is the first to do many things. This is
really a semantic discussion that connot allow a claim of “first” to
necessary mean an original contribution of major significance…
然后说我的工作只是一个过程的一步，每一步都可以认为是第一次。还具体举了推荐信
中一句话来说明。
第二条：主要说根据我发的文章IO承认 the petitioner’s success in his research
. However，发的文章 do not show that he yet has “contribution of major
significance”. Successful researcher in any field will have published and
cited articles- this does not, on its own, equate to a “major contribution”
第三条:主要说引用并不能代表我的工作major significance： “Merely being cited
does not necessarily mean that work is being utilized in a manner that
would make the petitioner’s work “of major significance”.
As with many of the petitoner’s claims, numbers of citations by respectable
people in respectable journals are used to argue the significance. However,
when looking at others at the top of their fields, though the petioner’s
work is valued and used as part of a process, it is not seen as major. 然后
举例说，给我写推荐信得人或者我的supervisor，都有数百，上千次的引用。
恳请大家帮帮出出注意，我该怎么反驳这几条。 非常感谢。
因为是二进宫了，所以感觉已经筋疲力尽了。希望做最后的一搏。
事隔3个多月后 再次投了。
这次没有遇到0002， 但是还是被RFE了 （IO是0444）。
把握的情况贴出来 请大家帮我出些注意，非常感谢啊。
背景：
美国PhD，claim老三样：contribution， authorship，review
文章16（一中文） 一作11， 影响因子都再13～4 。
引用320＋
review 45次 for 8 journals and 1 conference
RFE：
authorship 和review 满足了， 说没看到contribution中的 major significance
提出了3条：
第一，IO说在推荐信中，“none of them establish that the petitioner has
already make contributions of major significance in his field. … Though the
writers clearly think highly of the petitioner, the evidence does not
establish that the level of interest by the scientific community is
indicative of a contribution of major significance, either from one of the
petitioner’s publications or from the totally of this work to date.
The petitioner emphasizes that he is the first to do many things. This is
really a semantic discussion that connot allow a claim of “first” to
necessary mean an original contribution of major significance…
然后说我的工作只是一个过程的一步，每一步都可以认为是第一次。还具体举了推荐信
中一句话来说明。
第二条：主要说根据我发的文章IO承认 the petitioner’s success in his research
. However，发的文章 do not show that he yet has “contribution of major
significance”. Successful researcher in any field will have published and
cited articles- this does not, on its own, equate to a “major contribution”
第三条:主要说引用并不能代表我的工作major significance： “Merely being cited
does not necessarily mean that work is being utilized in a manner that
would make the petitioner’s work “of major significance”.
As with many of the petitoner’s claims, numbers of citations by respectable
people in respectable journals are used to argue the significance. However,
when looking at others at the top of their fields, though the petioner’s
work is valued and used as part of a process, it is not seen as major. 然后
举例说，给我写推荐信得人或者我的supervisor，都有数百，上千次的引用。
恳请大家帮帮出出注意，我该怎么反驳这几条。 非常感谢。
因为是二进宫了，所以感觉已经筋疲力尽了。希望做最后的一搏。
