又一个悲催的EB1b 0214 NOID# Immigration - 落地生根
m*a
1 楼
早上还嘀咕怎么五个月了也没消息。
刚收到律师的信说他收到了NOID。
我们单位是美国去年第一的医院，只给senior的researcher办EB1B. 律师说这还是第一
次收到NOID，说“ we have never gotten a response like this from a case like
this so we believe it is some kind of adjudicator error”.
这真是晴天霹雳啊。
看下面的回复，好像是三样都有，但都不够strong啊。
Criteria Analysis
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the
beneficiary has met the following regulatory criteria:
• Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
panel, as the judge of the work
of others in the same or an allied academic field
• Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field
• Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in
scholarly journals with
internationai circulation) in the academic field
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for
the following criterion:
• Published material in professional publications written by others
about the alien's work in the
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of
the material, and any
necessary translation
You offer citations of the alien's work as evidence for this criterion, but
USC IS does not recognize
citations as evidence for this criterion, because the alien's work must be
the focus of published
material, not simply citations of his work. Thus, such documentation has no
probative value for
meeting this criterion.
You further offer the alien's video ofher research ("viewed over 11,000
times") as evidence for this
criterion, but a video of the alien is not published work in a professional
publication (i.e., journal or monograph) about the her work.
I
If the petitioner believes that the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USCIS
has determined that the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under
, or any additional regulatory
criteria, the petitioner should submit clarifying evidence, or submit
additional evidence in response to
this portion of the notice of intent to deny.
Final Merits Analysis
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary
has met at least 2 of the 6
regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the evidence presented in its
entirety to make a final
merits determination of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of
the evidence, has
demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise
required for the E 12 immigrant
classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E
12 immigrant classification is
based on the beneficiary's being recognized internationally as outstanding
in the academic field
specified in the petition.
The record shows that the alien served as a reviewer in the academic field,
but the evidence does not
prove that the alien's participation in the widespread peer-review process (
a routine process in the field
relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects
sustained acclaim. Such
acclaim is more commonly associated with selection for service on an
editorial board of a prestigious
journal or as general chair of a professional scientific conference. Thus,
the submitted evidence
merely meets the plain language of this criterion.
You submitted 9 letters of support written by experts to establish the alien
's original research
contributions to the academic field. Dr. x declares that the alien's "
achievements make her an
extraordinary biochemistry and molecular biology scientist," and Dr. xx
briefly discusses the
alien's "pioneering work." Yet the alien's scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field must be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective
evidence. USCIS may in its
discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses, but USCIS is ultimately
responsible for making the final determination of the alien's eligibility.
See Matter of Caron
International, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). It must also be stressed
that letters alone are
insufficient to prove the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field.
The record shows that the alien published 11 articles with scholarly
journals and presented her work at
conferences in the field. But it is worthwhile to note that publications,
numerous or few, and
presentations are not as reliable a measurement in determining a researcher'
s influence on the
academic field as frequent, independent citations of her work. Indeed, USCIS
considers the number of
independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in determining the
alien's original
contributions to the academic field. Publishing alone may serve as evidence
of originality, but it is
difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence ifthere is
little to no evidence that
other researchers have relied on the alien's findings.
And so, upon examining the alien's citatory history, USCIS finds that her
research has contributed to
the academic field, but not significantly. To be sure, the number of
independent citations of the alien's
work, when compared with that of the top researchers in the field, all of
whom have garnered citations
well into the thousands, neither suggests much influence nor demonstrates
that the alien has
distinguished herself from other researchers in the field.
Although the evidence of record shows that the alien meets the plain
language of 3 regulatory criteria,
she is not very strong in any of them; moreover, the evidence does not
establish that the alien's
original research has contributed significantly to the field as a whole. You
have proven that the alien is
a promising and respected researcher who has secured some degree of national
and international
exposure for her work, but the record stops short of elevating her to the
level of one who is recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field.
As discussed, USCIS has evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish
that the beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher in accordance
with 203(b )( 1 )(B)(i) of the
INA.
Pursuant to section 291 of the INA, whenever any person makes an application
for an immigration
benefit, he shall bear the burden of proof to establish eligibility.
Accordingly, the petitioner must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is more
likely than not, that the
beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. See Matter of E-M-, 20 I. &
N. Dec. 77 (BIA 1989).
After a careful review and analysis of all evidence within the record, USCIS
finds that the petitioner
has not established eligibility for the benefit sought.
The petitioner is hereby notified that it is the intent ofUSCIS to deny this
Form I-140 petition. The
petitioner has 30 (thirty) days (33 (thirty-three) days if this notice is
received by mail) to submit
evidence in response to this request. Any evidence submitted will be
carefully reviewed. Failure to
submit evidence in response to this notice of intent to deny will result in
the denial of this Form I-140
petition based upon the reasons set forth in this notice.
Mark J. Hazuda
Director
Officer: 0214
刚收到律师的信说他收到了NOID。
我们单位是美国去年第一的医院，只给senior的researcher办EB1B. 律师说这还是第一
次收到NOID，说“ we have never gotten a response like this from a case like
this so we believe it is some kind of adjudicator error”.
这真是晴天霹雳啊。
看下面的回复，好像是三样都有，但都不够strong啊。
Criteria Analysis
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the
beneficiary has met the following regulatory criteria:
• Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
panel, as the judge of the work
of others in the same or an allied academic field
• Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field
• Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in
scholarly journals with
internationai circulation) in the academic field
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for
the following criterion:
• Published material in professional publications written by others
about the alien's work in the
academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of
the material, and any
necessary translation
You offer citations of the alien's work as evidence for this criterion, but
USC IS does not recognize
citations as evidence for this criterion, because the alien's work must be
the focus of published
material, not simply citations of his work. Thus, such documentation has no
probative value for
meeting this criterion.
You further offer the alien's video ofher research ("viewed over 11,000
times") as evidence for this
criterion, but a video of the alien is not published work in a professional
publication (i.e., journal or monograph) about the her work.
I
If the petitioner believes that the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USCIS
has determined that the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under
, or any additional regulatory
criteria, the petitioner should submit clarifying evidence, or submit
additional evidence in response to
this portion of the notice of intent to deny.
Final Merits Analysis
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary
has met at least 2 of the 6
regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the evidence presented in its
entirety to make a final
merits determination of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of
the evidence, has
demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise
required for the E 12 immigrant
classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E
12 immigrant classification is
based on the beneficiary's being recognized internationally as outstanding
in the academic field
specified in the petition.
The record shows that the alien served as a reviewer in the academic field,
but the evidence does not
prove that the alien's participation in the widespread peer-review process (
a routine process in the field
relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects
sustained acclaim. Such
acclaim is more commonly associated with selection for service on an
editorial board of a prestigious
journal or as general chair of a professional scientific conference. Thus,
the submitted evidence
merely meets the plain language of this criterion.
You submitted 9 letters of support written by experts to establish the alien
's original research
contributions to the academic field. Dr. x declares that the alien's "
achievements make her an
extraordinary biochemistry and molecular biology scientist," and Dr. xx
briefly discusses the
alien's "pioneering work." Yet the alien's scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field must be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective
evidence. USCIS may in its
discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses, but USCIS is ultimately
responsible for making the final determination of the alien's eligibility.
See Matter of Caron
International, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). It must also be stressed
that letters alone are
insufficient to prove the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field.
The record shows that the alien published 11 articles with scholarly
journals and presented her work at
conferences in the field. But it is worthwhile to note that publications,
numerous or few, and
presentations are not as reliable a measurement in determining a researcher'
s influence on the
academic field as frequent, independent citations of her work. Indeed, USCIS
considers the number of
independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in determining the
alien's original
contributions to the academic field. Publishing alone may serve as evidence
of originality, but it is
difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence ifthere is
little to no evidence that
other researchers have relied on the alien's findings.
And so, upon examining the alien's citatory history, USCIS finds that her
research has contributed to
the academic field, but not significantly. To be sure, the number of
independent citations of the alien's
work, when compared with that of the top researchers in the field, all of
whom have garnered citations
well into the thousands, neither suggests much influence nor demonstrates
that the alien has
distinguished herself from other researchers in the field.
Although the evidence of record shows that the alien meets the plain
language of 3 regulatory criteria,
she is not very strong in any of them; moreover, the evidence does not
establish that the alien's
original research has contributed significantly to the field as a whole. You
have proven that the alien is
a promising and respected researcher who has secured some degree of national
and international
exposure for her work, but the record stops short of elevating her to the
level of one who is recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field.
As discussed, USCIS has evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish
that the beneficiary is an outstanding professor or researcher in accordance
with 203(b )( 1 )(B)(i) of the
INA.
Pursuant to section 291 of the INA, whenever any person makes an application
for an immigration
benefit, he shall bear the burden of proof to establish eligibility.
Accordingly, the petitioner must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is more
likely than not, that the
beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. See Matter of E-M-, 20 I. &
N. Dec. 77 (BIA 1989).
After a careful review and analysis of all evidence within the record, USCIS
finds that the petitioner
has not established eligibility for the benefit sought.
The petitioner is hereby notified that it is the intent ofUSCIS to deny this
Form I-140 petition. The
petitioner has 30 (thirty) days (33 (thirty-three) days if this notice is
received by mail) to submit
evidence in response to this request. Any evidence submitted will be
carefully reviewed. Failure to
submit evidence in response to this notice of intent to deny will result in
the denial of this Form I-140
petition based upon the reasons set forth in this notice.
Mark J. Hazuda
Director
Officer: 0214
