吐血 EB1A 追加PP第七天被NOID, 求大家支招!!!!# Immigration - 落地生根
h*7
1 楼
IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
, contribution
文章13(IF 2-13)
Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
引用:递交时240+
推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但
totality不够,NOID notice很长,批判的点比较多,我看不出IO真正关注的是哪一点
或者是每条都不放过,我总结了要点如下,也把原文附在文后了。
Review:
1. 仅有审稿的客观证据不足以证明sustained national or international
acclaim
2. 审稿次数被律师搞错了!
3. 不能证明比其他领域中的researcher审稿多,尤其和editors-in-chief比较
4. 审稿人审的杂志的水平不能说明审稿人的水品(因为有claim杂志IF和排名)
5. 审稿的证据不能证明别人rely on我的judgement
Contribution:
1. 开会是researcher经常做的,会议presentation没有被cite,impact仅限于参与会
议的人。
2. Citation数据不能证明和领域其他expert比是widely cited
3. 推荐信不能作为主要证据
Authorship:
1. Citation数据不能证明small percentage
2. 参加会议不能说明very top,不是keynote speaker或the conference was
solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner
3. 发文章是Researcher的本职工作
4. Citation太少,不能体现top
以下是我PL里除了推荐信以外的客观证据
1. paper的IF,排名 (数字都在1%-10%)
2. citation和同年发表同领域发表文章的比较(0.1%-10%)
3. 提到cite我文章的几个世界牛校
4. Google scholar search的ranking,有文章用特殊关键词搜排第二
5. Review文章数,杂志数,杂志IF排名
6. 两个独立推荐人提出自己的工作是基于我的工作
我参考板上讨论,以下是觉得可以追加的材料和一些疑问,恳求大家的建议和补充
1. 找editors要review的supporting letter。review方面除了这个我真想不出其他招
了,但IO有要求objective evidence, 怎么说明review比其他人多呢。
2. 看起来citation不能只和同领域的其他文章比,还要和其他同行专家比,但这要比
就完败了吧,citation数据还有什么好的比较方法?
3. Citation的国别,学校可以统计一下,做个油灯图。原来PL这一点是飘过的
4. 我知道要挖citation中的亮点,但是大多数citation都是在Introduction里带过,
真的挖不出什么来了。这也是PL里没有写citation细节。
5. 推荐人中其实有三个人cite过我的文章并在推荐信中提到了,感觉IO没怎么看推荐
信,还需要大量补推荐信么
6. 审稿次数被律师搞错了,26次PL里写了33。我现在还不清楚原因,这个问题很严重
么,这一点要怎么答复。
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received a one-
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized prize or award.
As a result, the evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiaiy has
fulfilled at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations.
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 a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought;
* Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related
contributions of major significance in the field; and
*Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major
trade publications or other major media.
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 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 El 1 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the El
I immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing;
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
*In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained"
national or international 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 one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Firstly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate that he has
participated, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought. This evidence primarily consists of email
correspondence between the petitioner and various journals for which he
performed peer reviews. While this evidence does meet the plain language of
this criterion, it is insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is
one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and
that he has sustained national or international acclaim.
In the letter submitted by counsel, it states that the journals in which the
petitioner has conducted peer reviews "...enlist the services of only the
most accomplished researchers." Despite this claim, evidence was not
submitted from each of the journals in which the petitioner conducted peer
reviews to demonstrate this. The assertions of counsel do not constitute
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena. 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980).
Additionally, the evidence submitted demonstrates that the petitioner has
conducted peer reviews for XXX. XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX,XXX, and XXX. The letter
submitted by counsel states that the
petitioner has reviewed 31 manuscripts; however, based on the evidence
submitted it appears that the petitioner has reviewed 26 manuscripts (some
copies of the emails provided were for the same article). This information
is insufficient without independent and objective evidence demonstrating
that this number of peer reviews is significantly higher than that of others
who are considered experts in the same or an allied field of specialization
for which classification is sought,
While peer reviewers perform a necessary and vital function, the evidence
does not establish that it is a role which indicates international
recognition as outstanding in the academic field for the reviewer,
especially when compared to editors-in-chief of respected journals. The
evidence shows that the petitioner has been asked to review multiple
articles. This evidence does not, however, show that the petitioner has been
asked to review articles more frequently than other researchers in his
field, or that the requests are based on him being outstanding. USCIS will
not presume the significance of the petitioner's reviewing based on the
journal(s) he reviewed for, and the petitioner must demonstrate the
significance of his role in the review process. In addition, the evidence
submitted that the petitioner has performed as a reviewer does not indicate
that his expertise is widely or frequently relied upon as a judge of his
peers,
Secondly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his original
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions
of major significance in the field. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner's participation in conferences,
six letters of recommendation, and copies of the published articles in which
the petitioner co-authored with information concerning the journals in
which they were published. While the petitioner has met the plain language
of this criterion, the totality of the evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field and that he has sustained national or
international acclaim.
Evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the petitioner has presented
his research findings at national meetings and conferences. Many
professional fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work
, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These
conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations,
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. There is no
documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's conference
presentations are frequently cited by other scientists, have significantly
impacted the field, or otherwise rise to the level of showing that the
beneficiary is considered extraordinary in the field. While the presentation
of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with
others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the
selection of them to be presented, the presentations of the petitioner’s
work at various venues are not sufficient evidence in establishing that his
work is not limited to the engagement in which his work was presented. The
petitioner failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence of his
presentations beyond the audience at the conferences,
USCIS acknowledges that the petitioner has published useful research as
demonstrated by some of the journals in which his articles were published,
as well as the number of citations listed for some of the articles for the
year in which they were published. However, this evidence does not
demonstrate that the petitioner's work has provoked widespread public
commentary or has been widely cited in comparison to others who are
considered experts in the same field. The petitioner's field, like most
scientific fields, is research-driven and generally result in the
publication of one's research in peer-reviewed journals. While the
petitioner's research clearly has practical applications, it can be argued
that any published article, in order to be accepted or published, must offer
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge.
Letters of recommendation written by experts may be helpful; however, the
major significance of the petitioner’s work must be demonstrated by
preexisting, independent, and objective evidence. While such letters are
important in providing details about the petitioner's work and/or research,
they cannot by themselves establish that the petitioner’s contributions to
the field have far-reaching implications or that the petitioner has
sustained national or international acclaim, Letters of support alone
generally may not be sufficient and, though not without weight, cannot form
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in
its discretion, use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final
determination of the alien’s eligibility [Matter of Caron International, 19
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr.1988)]. The evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field or that he has sustained national or
international acclaim,
Lastly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his authorship
of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade
publications or other major media. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner’s participation in conferences,
information concerning the journals in which the petitioner's work has been
published, and evidence of citations of the petitioner's work. While this
evidence does meet the plain language of this criterion, they are
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim.
USCIS acknowledges through the evidence submitted that the petitioner has
participated in various national conferences, has co-authored articles that
have been published in journals within the same field, and has had his work
cited by others within the same field. However, this evidence is
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim. The information provided
concerning the petitioner's participation in conferences is not indicative
of demonstrating that he has risen to the very top of his field as it does
not appear that he was a keynote speaker, or that the conference was solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner.
At the time of filing the instant petition, it appears that the petitioner
had co-authored 13 articles and abstracts that had been published in
scholarly journals. USCIS notes that researchers are generally expected to
publish their research results. The Association of American Universities'
Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a
postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition was
the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatoty for a
full-time academic and/or research career,'' and that “the appointee has
the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research
or scholarship during the period of the appointment.” Thus, this national
organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected,” even
among researchers who have not yet begun “a full-time academic and/or
research career.”
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had,
the very act of publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation
history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of
originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is
important or influential if there is little or no evidence that other
researchers have relied upon the petitioner’s findings. Frequent citation
by independent researchers, on the other hand, would demonstrate more
widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. The evidence
of record shows the petitioner's works have been cited minimally and that
his citation record is not sufficient to establish the outstanding nature of
the petitioner's publications. While the evidence presented may indicate a
degree of interest in the petitioner’s work, the petitioner has not shown
that his articles have an unusual level of interest as to distinguish him as
extraordinary in his field especially in comparison to known experts in the
field. Overall, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the
petitioner’s work has advanced the field as a whole and has set him apart
from other experts in the field.
不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
, contribution
文章13(IF 2-13)
Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
引用:递交时240+
推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但
totality不够,NOID notice很长,批判的点比较多,我看不出IO真正关注的是哪一点
或者是每条都不放过,我总结了要点如下,也把原文附在文后了。
Review:
1. 仅有审稿的客观证据不足以证明sustained national or international
acclaim
2. 审稿次数被律师搞错了!
3. 不能证明比其他领域中的researcher审稿多,尤其和editors-in-chief比较
4. 审稿人审的杂志的水平不能说明审稿人的水品(因为有claim杂志IF和排名)
5. 审稿的证据不能证明别人rely on我的judgement
Contribution:
1. 开会是researcher经常做的,会议presentation没有被cite,impact仅限于参与会
议的人。
2. Citation数据不能证明和领域其他expert比是widely cited
3. 推荐信不能作为主要证据
Authorship:
1. Citation数据不能证明small percentage
2. 参加会议不能说明very top,不是keynote speaker或the conference was
solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner
3. 发文章是Researcher的本职工作
4. Citation太少,不能体现top
以下是我PL里除了推荐信以外的客观证据
1. paper的IF,排名 (数字都在1%-10%)
2. citation和同年发表同领域发表文章的比较(0.1%-10%)
3. 提到cite我文章的几个世界牛校
4. Google scholar search的ranking,有文章用特殊关键词搜排第二
5. Review文章数,杂志数,杂志IF排名
6. 两个独立推荐人提出自己的工作是基于我的工作
我参考板上讨论,以下是觉得可以追加的材料和一些疑问,恳求大家的建议和补充
1. 找editors要review的supporting letter。review方面除了这个我真想不出其他招
了,但IO有要求objective evidence, 怎么说明review比其他人多呢。
2. 看起来citation不能只和同领域的其他文章比,还要和其他同行专家比,但这要比
就完败了吧,citation数据还有什么好的比较方法?
3. Citation的国别,学校可以统计一下,做个油灯图。原来PL这一点是飘过的
4. 我知道要挖citation中的亮点,但是大多数citation都是在Introduction里带过,
真的挖不出什么来了。这也是PL里没有写citation细节。
5. 推荐人中其实有三个人cite过我的文章并在推荐信中提到了,感觉IO没怎么看推荐
信,还需要大量补推荐信么
6. 审稿次数被律师搞错了,26次PL里写了33。我现在还不清楚原因,这个问题很严重
么,这一点要怎么答复。
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received a one-
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized prize or award.
As a result, the evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiaiy has
fulfilled at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations.
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 a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought;
* Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related
contributions of major significance in the field; and
*Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major
trade publications or other major media.
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 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 El 1 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the El
I immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing;
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
*In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained"
national or international 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 one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Firstly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate that he has
participated, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought. This evidence primarily consists of email
correspondence between the petitioner and various journals for which he
performed peer reviews. While this evidence does meet the plain language of
this criterion, it is insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is
one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and
that he has sustained national or international acclaim.
In the letter submitted by counsel, it states that the journals in which the
petitioner has conducted peer reviews "...enlist the services of only the
most accomplished researchers." Despite this claim, evidence was not
submitted from each of the journals in which the petitioner conducted peer
reviews to demonstrate this. The assertions of counsel do not constitute
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena. 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980).
Additionally, the evidence submitted demonstrates that the petitioner has
conducted peer reviews for XXX. XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX,XXX, and XXX. The letter
submitted by counsel states that the
petitioner has reviewed 31 manuscripts; however, based on the evidence
submitted it appears that the petitioner has reviewed 26 manuscripts (some
copies of the emails provided were for the same article). This information
is insufficient without independent and objective evidence demonstrating
that this number of peer reviews is significantly higher than that of others
who are considered experts in the same or an allied field of specialization
for which classification is sought,
While peer reviewers perform a necessary and vital function, the evidence
does not establish that it is a role which indicates international
recognition as outstanding in the academic field for the reviewer,
especially when compared to editors-in-chief of respected journals. The
evidence shows that the petitioner has been asked to review multiple
articles. This evidence does not, however, show that the petitioner has been
asked to review articles more frequently than other researchers in his
field, or that the requests are based on him being outstanding. USCIS will
not presume the significance of the petitioner's reviewing based on the
journal(s) he reviewed for, and the petitioner must demonstrate the
significance of his role in the review process. In addition, the evidence
submitted that the petitioner has performed as a reviewer does not indicate
that his expertise is widely or frequently relied upon as a judge of his
peers,
Secondly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his original
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions
of major significance in the field. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner's participation in conferences,
six letters of recommendation, and copies of the published articles in which
the petitioner co-authored with information concerning the journals in
which they were published. While the petitioner has met the plain language
of this criterion, the totality of the evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field and that he has sustained national or
international acclaim.
Evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the petitioner has presented
his research findings at national meetings and conferences. Many
professional fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work
, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These
conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations,
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. There is no
documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's conference
presentations are frequently cited by other scientists, have significantly
impacted the field, or otherwise rise to the level of showing that the
beneficiary is considered extraordinary in the field. While the presentation
of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with
others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the
selection of them to be presented, the presentations of the petitioner’s
work at various venues are not sufficient evidence in establishing that his
work is not limited to the engagement in which his work was presented. The
petitioner failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence of his
presentations beyond the audience at the conferences,
USCIS acknowledges that the petitioner has published useful research as
demonstrated by some of the journals in which his articles were published,
as well as the number of citations listed for some of the articles for the
year in which they were published. However, this evidence does not
demonstrate that the petitioner's work has provoked widespread public
commentary or has been widely cited in comparison to others who are
considered experts in the same field. The petitioner's field, like most
scientific fields, is research-driven and generally result in the
publication of one's research in peer-reviewed journals. While the
petitioner's research clearly has practical applications, it can be argued
that any published article, in order to be accepted or published, must offer
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge.
Letters of recommendation written by experts may be helpful; however, the
major significance of the petitioner’s work must be demonstrated by
preexisting, independent, and objective evidence. While such letters are
important in providing details about the petitioner's work and/or research,
they cannot by themselves establish that the petitioner’s contributions to
the field have far-reaching implications or that the petitioner has
sustained national or international acclaim, Letters of support alone
generally may not be sufficient and, though not without weight, cannot form
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in
its discretion, use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final
determination of the alien’s eligibility [Matter of Caron International, 19
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr.1988)]. The evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field or that he has sustained national or
international acclaim,
Lastly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his authorship
of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade
publications or other major media. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner’s participation in conferences,
information concerning the journals in which the petitioner's work has been
published, and evidence of citations of the petitioner's work. While this
evidence does meet the plain language of this criterion, they are
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim.
USCIS acknowledges through the evidence submitted that the petitioner has
participated in various national conferences, has co-authored articles that
have been published in journals within the same field, and has had his work
cited by others within the same field. However, this evidence is
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim. The information provided
concerning the petitioner's participation in conferences is not indicative
of demonstrating that he has risen to the very top of his field as it does
not appear that he was a keynote speaker, or that the conference was solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner.
At the time of filing the instant petition, it appears that the petitioner
had co-authored 13 articles and abstracts that had been published in
scholarly journals. USCIS notes that researchers are generally expected to
publish their research results. The Association of American Universities'
Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a
postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition was
the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatoty for a
full-time academic and/or research career,'' and that “the appointee has
the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research
or scholarship during the period of the appointment.” Thus, this national
organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected,” even
among researchers who have not yet begun “a full-time academic and/or
research career.”
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had,
the very act of publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation
history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of
originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is
important or influential if there is little or no evidence that other
researchers have relied upon the petitioner’s findings. Frequent citation
by independent researchers, on the other hand, would demonstrate more
widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. The evidence
of record shows the petitioner's works have been cited minimally and that
his citation record is not sufficient to establish the outstanding nature of
the petitioner's publications. While the evidence presented may indicate a
degree of interest in the petitioner’s work, the petitioner has not shown
that his articles have an unusual level of interest as to distinguish him as
extraordinary in his field especially in comparison to known experts in the
field. Overall, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the
petitioner’s work has advanced the field as a whole and has set him apart
from other experts in the field.