大家帮帮忙，TSC EB1A PP NOID 质疑Review,质疑工作计划# Immigration - 落地生根
x*y
1 楼
首先感谢各位在上周末的祝福，今天收到信了，不是RFE 是NOID!!! IO XM0106
"背景：
国内博士，目前在美国家实验室博后
超分子化学，23 paper, 5 一作，1Angew, 1CC, 1 OL
引用 435 独立引用 315
5独立推荐信：2 美国, 1 英国 （剑桥）， 1德国，1法国
审稿 20 包括 CC, OL, JOC”
在我的PL 里面Claim 三大项：
I. I am an alien of extraordinary ability on the basis of the following
facts:
a. Exceptional Authorship;
b. Significant Original Contributions;
c. Judging The Work Of Other Scientists;
II. I will continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability in the
United States; and
III. My future stay in the United States will substantially prospectively
benefit the United States.
非常重视第一大项，详细列举了三条证据：审稿，论文，贡献。太大意第二三项结果竟
然也被质疑，要求证据；
首先是说根据两步法：
I. I am an alien of extraordinary ability on the basis of the following
facts:
a. Exceptional Authorship;
b. Significant Original Contributions;
c. Judging The Work Of Other Scientists;
都提供了证据，但不足以说明杰出，理由是：
“The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articales in 7
journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter , Ploymer
Chemistry, etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by
itself, is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or
international acclaim, then USCIS can not conclude that the beneficiary's
peer-review of others' work is consistent with either a "level of expertise
indicating the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to
the very top of the field of endeavor" or "sustained national or
international acclaim" The evidence would need to set the beneficiary's
apart from others in his field.
Not only dose the documentation under 8 C.F.R. Section 204.4(h)(V)
demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions are of major significance
to the field , but the field's response to the beneficiary's scholarly
article/conference presentations are indicative of or consistent with
sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field of
endeavor.
As discussed, USCIS have evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish that the beneficiary is an individual of
extraordinary ability in accordance of 203(b)(1)(A) of the INA.
Additionally, as required by Section 203(1)(A)(ii) of the INA, the
beneficiary must enter the United states to continue work in the claimed
area of expertis..... 后面就说我合同马上到期，工作计划太粗糙，要求证据（but
not limited) ：
1）雇主支持信（当时太自信了，全用了独立推荐信，老板的都没要）
2）工作合同（还好刚刚续上了新合同）；
3） 详细工作计划（是不是太变态了）
最终结论，证据不足以符合要求， intend to deny, 30 天提工回复；
请大家帮帮忙提提建议：
1） 没看太懂“Not only dose the documentation under 8 C.F.R. Section 204.4(h
)(V)demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions are of major
significance to the field , but the field's response to the beneficiary's
scholarly article/conference presentations are indicative of or consistent
with sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field of
endeavor.”承认了我的contribution？？？ 但怎么没有提及 Publication? 还需要提
供证据证明所有三条么？？？
感觉这个IO 就一脑子浆糊，大笔一挥，就给个 NOID...
2） 大家在帮帮忙看怎么搞定review?? 上次没要到编辑推荐信，因为主要审的杂志都
是小杂志。
"背景：
国内博士，目前在美国家实验室博后
超分子化学，23 paper, 5 一作，1Angew, 1CC, 1 OL
引用 435 独立引用 315
5独立推荐信：2 美国, 1 英国 （剑桥）， 1德国，1法国
审稿 20 包括 CC, OL, JOC”
在我的PL 里面Claim 三大项：
I. I am an alien of extraordinary ability on the basis of the following
facts:
a. Exceptional Authorship;
b. Significant Original Contributions;
c. Judging The Work Of Other Scientists;
II. I will continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability in the
United States; and
III. My future stay in the United States will substantially prospectively
benefit the United States.
非常重视第一大项，详细列举了三条证据：审稿，论文，贡献。太大意第二三项结果竟
然也被质疑，要求证据；
首先是说根据两步法：
I. I am an alien of extraordinary ability on the basis of the following
facts:
a. Exceptional Authorship;
b. Significant Original Contributions;
c. Judging The Work Of Other Scientists;
都提供了证据，但不足以说明杰出，理由是：
“The record reflects the beneficiary's peer review of 19 articales in 7
journals, including Chemical communication, Orgnic Letter , Ploymer
Chemistry, etc. However, because peer review is routine in the field and, by
itself, is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or
international acclaim, then USCIS can not conclude that the beneficiary's
peer-review of others' work is consistent with either a "level of expertise
indicating the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to
the very top of the field of endeavor" or "sustained national or
international acclaim" The evidence would need to set the beneficiary's
apart from others in his field.
Not only dose the documentation under 8 C.F.R. Section 204.4(h)(V)
demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions are of major significance
to the field , but the field's response to the beneficiary's scholarly
article/conference presentations are indicative of or consistent with
sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field of
endeavor.
As discussed, USCIS have evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish that the beneficiary is an individual of
extraordinary ability in accordance of 203(b)(1)(A) of the INA.
Additionally, as required by Section 203(1)(A)(ii) of the INA, the
beneficiary must enter the United states to continue work in the claimed
area of expertis..... 后面就说我合同马上到期，工作计划太粗糙，要求证据（but
not limited) ：
1）雇主支持信（当时太自信了，全用了独立推荐信，老板的都没要）
2）工作合同（还好刚刚续上了新合同）；
3） 详细工作计划（是不是太变态了）
最终结论，证据不足以符合要求， intend to deny, 30 天提工回复；
请大家帮帮忙提提建议：
1） 没看太懂“Not only dose the documentation under 8 C.F.R. Section 204.4(h
)(V)demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions are of major
significance to the field , but the field's response to the beneficiary's
scholarly article/conference presentations are indicative of or consistent
with sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field of
endeavor.”承认了我的contribution？？？ 但怎么没有提及 Publication? 还需要提
供证据证明所有三条么？？？
感觉这个IO 就一脑子浆糊，大笔一挥，就给个 NOID...
2） 大家在帮帮忙看怎么搞定review?? 上次没要到编辑推荐信，因为主要审的杂志都
是小杂志。
