NSC EB1A 140 PP RFE approved 02/25/15# Immigration - 落地生根
j*g
1 楼
Timeline:
RD: 01/05/2015
RFE: 01/08/2015
Approval: 02/25/2015
一个月前发过RFE贴，原贴地址：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33409089.html
内容copy在此：
--------------------分割线---------------------------------------------
背景介绍：
薄后三年，方向抗癌药研发，9篇paper，6篇一作，1篇二作，2篇三作。一篇一作
Nature刚发不久，无引用，有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用
133次，未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中，但已被公司
contract。独立推荐信3封，另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。
找的律师，claim老三样，直接pp，01/05/15 RD，01/08/15 RFE，落到0444手里，质疑
contribution，贴出来给大家看看：
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,it
is just that - an application. Until approved and others begin to utilize
it, it does not help meet the language here of "major contribution”. Second
; the citation number is impressive but not indicative of a major
contribution. USCIS does not see multiple people making substantial use of
the petitioner's work. The letters show that some in the field think highly
of the petitioner, but without being supplemented by independent and
objective evidences, do little to help meet this criterion. A couple of
notes here: Dr. XXX states that the petitioner developed drugs that “...
perform much better in killing pancreatic cancer cells than the current
drugs..." This sounds significant and perhaps major. However, USCIS would
need letters from doctors and/or scientists that are now using these drugs
of the petitioner. Finally. the recognition in the media is not "about" the
petitioner, and though the petitioner’s supervisor points out his valuable
contributions, the supervisor does not say that this recognition was for the
petitioner's work. From the evidence and his letter, it appears to be
recognition of Dr. XXX and the entire lab/team.
自己分析主要说了三点：一说我patent只是application，直接忽视已被公司买断事实
；二说citation和RL不能证明别人用我成果，特举例说RL1说我的药好不算数要doctor/
scientist用了说好才行，他哪知一个药从bench 到bedside要10-20年啊，我的药还在
实验室研发阶段呢；三说media report没有recognize 我的contribution，都是说我老
板的，还说我老板推荐信看不出我的contribution，这篇Nature是team effort，无语
了，一作都不算contribution啥算，哪篇paper不是team effort更何况药物开发这种系
统工程。顺便骂一句变态老板开press release连我名字都不提。
-------------------分割线------------------------------------------
咨询了大蜜，参考了大家的建议，和律师商量补了以下材料：
1.找买我patent公司的chief scientist写了封信证明买了而且正在大搞全是base on我
的东西
2.找我老板写了封信强调90%的实验和文章是我的贡献
3.找了两个引用过我文章的推荐人说没有我的paper他们的就没戏
4.打印了每个国家一篇代表性的引用我文章的paper
5.自己挖掘了一下ESI citation percentile， 发现自己有一片文章top 1%, 两片top
10%.
上周四过年收到材料，这周三approval.
转战485，祝大家好运！
RD: 01/05/2015
RFE: 01/08/2015
Approval: 02/25/2015
一个月前发过RFE贴，原贴地址：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33409089.html
内容copy在此：
--------------------分割线---------------------------------------------
背景介绍：
薄后三年，方向抗癌药研发，9篇paper，6篇一作，1篇二作，2篇三作。一篇一作
Nature刚发不久，无引用，有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用
133次，未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中，但已被公司
contract。独立推荐信3封，另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。
找的律师，claim老三样，直接pp，01/05/15 RD，01/08/15 RFE，落到0444手里，质疑
contribution，贴出来给大家看看：
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,it
is just that - an application. Until approved and others begin to utilize
it, it does not help meet the language here of "major contribution”. Second
; the citation number is impressive but not indicative of a major
contribution. USCIS does not see multiple people making substantial use of
the petitioner's work. The letters show that some in the field think highly
of the petitioner, but without being supplemented by independent and
objective evidences, do little to help meet this criterion. A couple of
notes here: Dr. XXX states that the petitioner developed drugs that “...
perform much better in killing pancreatic cancer cells than the current
drugs..." This sounds significant and perhaps major. However, USCIS would
need letters from doctors and/or scientists that are now using these drugs
of the petitioner. Finally. the recognition in the media is not "about" the
petitioner, and though the petitioner’s supervisor points out his valuable
contributions, the supervisor does not say that this recognition was for the
petitioner's work. From the evidence and his letter, it appears to be
recognition of Dr. XXX and the entire lab/team.
自己分析主要说了三点：一说我patent只是application，直接忽视已被公司买断事实
；二说citation和RL不能证明别人用我成果，特举例说RL1说我的药好不算数要doctor/
scientist用了说好才行，他哪知一个药从bench 到bedside要10-20年啊，我的药还在
实验室研发阶段呢；三说media report没有recognize 我的contribution，都是说我老
板的，还说我老板推荐信看不出我的contribution，这篇Nature是team effort，无语
了，一作都不算contribution啥算，哪篇paper不是team effort更何况药物开发这种系
统工程。顺便骂一句变态老板开press release连我名字都不提。
-------------------分割线------------------------------------------
咨询了大蜜，参考了大家的建议，和律师商量补了以下材料：
1.找买我patent公司的chief scientist写了封信证明买了而且正在大搞全是base on我
的东西
2.找我老板写了封信强调90%的实验和文章是我的贡献
3.找了两个引用过我文章的推荐人说没有我的paper他们的就没戏
4.打印了每个国家一篇代表性的引用我文章的paper
5.自己挖掘了一下ESI citation percentile， 发现自己有一片文章top 1%, 两片top
10%.
上周四过年收到材料，这周三approval.
转战485，祝大家好运！
