EB1a Non-PP RFE by XM0100 问问大家的意见,谢谢!# Immigration - 落地生根
c*z
1 楼
背景:美国排名100的州立大学博士,政府研究机构的博后。
文章:4篇一作,6篇二作三作(IF=1篇8,其他2-5)
审稿:30
引用:Google Scholar提交的时候110,现在160
Claim老三样
因为case很弱,所以没有PP,等了10个月。Offier XM0100 承认了文章和审稿,不承认
Contribution。原话是:
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific scholarly, artistic.
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
You have provided;
• a) Letters of support.
• b) 112 citations.
• c) Original research as it relates to fungi and bacteria to soil, as
well as the other original research discoveries he made in soil biology.
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. USCIS has carefully reviewed the
letters submitted on the petitionel’s behalf and clearly the petitioner has
made original research discoveries as it relates to soil biology; however,
these letters fall short in establishing how these discoveries are
considered a major significance within the field. It has not been
established his work has been heavily cited or widely implemented. It is not
unusual for researchers to make first time discoveries and to have other
researchers cite/reference other researchers’ work. This criterion requires
research work that has made a major significant impact within the field,
and the evidence does not show his work has. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was ‘originar (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of ‘major” significance. General statements
regard ing the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
其实中心思想就是however, these letters fall short in establishing how these
discoveries are considered a major significance within the field. It has not
been established his work has been heavily cited or widely implemented.
律师建议继续找独立推荐人,强调他们在文章里引用了我的文献并且帮助了他们的研究
。虽然觉得希望不大。请问大家有什么意见或者建议?非常感谢!
文章:4篇一作,6篇二作三作(IF=1篇8,其他2-5)
审稿:30
引用:Google Scholar提交的时候110,现在160
Claim老三样
因为case很弱,所以没有PP,等了10个月。Offier XM0100 承认了文章和审稿,不承认
Contribution。原话是:
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific scholarly, artistic.
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
You have provided;
• a) Letters of support.
• b) 112 citations.
• c) Original research as it relates to fungi and bacteria to soil, as
well as the other original research discoveries he made in soil biology.
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. USCIS has carefully reviewed the
letters submitted on the petitionel’s behalf and clearly the petitioner has
made original research discoveries as it relates to soil biology; however,
these letters fall short in establishing how these discoveries are
considered a major significance within the field. It has not been
established his work has been heavily cited or widely implemented. It is not
unusual for researchers to make first time discoveries and to have other
researchers cite/reference other researchers’ work. This criterion requires
research work that has made a major significant impact within the field,
and the evidence does not show his work has. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary’s contributions are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was ‘originar (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of ‘major” significance. General statements
regard ing the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
其实中心思想就是however, these letters fall short in establishing how these
discoveries are considered a major significance within the field. It has not
been established his work has been heavily cited or widely implemented.
律师建议继续找独立推荐人,强调他们在文章里引用了我的文献并且帮助了他们的研究
。虽然觉得希望不大。请问大家有什么意见或者建议?非常感谢!