二进宫：TSC EB1A RFE 求助求祝福# Immigration - 落地生根
C*X
1 楼
已经是二进宫了，第一次找律师感觉不靠谱，第二次DIY,结果pp之后又收到TSC EB1A收
到RFE,感觉像是模板，希望版上各位大神给点建议！
背景：
Paper: 9篇 （7篇一作，2篇2作，其中五篇top journals，两篇一作citation超过一百)
Citation: 250+
Review: 40个
Claim老三样，找了六个独立推荐人写推荐信，两个美国的（其中一个工业界），一个
香港的，一个希腊的，一个德国的，一个西班牙，其中有四个是IEEE Fellow。因为DIY
的推荐信，把能吹得都吹了，个人觉得还算strong,而且六个人都基本没改。在版上看
了好多RFE的case,还有一个有经验的师兄帮我看材料把关，感觉把能避免的都已经避免
了,结果还是被RFE。
第十四天收到了RFE,IO是XM1218。承认review和authorship,质疑contribution。感觉
像是没时间看扔出的模板，不知道是好事还是坏事，更不知道该怎么回复，请各位大神
支支招吧。下文是质疑contribution。
“The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple
evidentiary elements that the beneficiary must satisfy. The first is
evidence of the beneficiary’s contributions (plural) in the field. The
beneficiary must also demonstrate that the contributions are original. The
final requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an
organization. The phrase “major significance” is not superfluous, and,
thus, it has meaning. Contributions of major significance connotes that the
beneficiary’s work has significantly impacted the field, not one
organization or one business location but the field as a whole. The
beneficiary must submit evidence that satisfies all of these elements to
meet the plain language requirements of the criterion.
As evidence the petitioner discussed her published works, her citations, and
submitted letters of support. Publishing is an inherent part of being a
research and publishing does not indicate that one has made a significant
contribution to the field nor do citations, as it relates to this criteria.
As researchers, it is normal to build on the research of others and to
comment on it. Support letters alone cannot form the cornerstone for meeting
the criteria. This criterion requires evidence that the petitioner has made
a significant contribution to the field. The benefit is for the very top of
the field and the evidence must reflect that. One would expect that the
impact to the field would be widely noted in major publications, top award
received, patents awarded, contracts signed with major corporations, or that
it has been widely implemented in the field. This type of impact should
have more evidence that letters of support. That is the reason the Section
203(b)(1)(A) of the INA states impart “…whose achievements have been
recognized in the field through extensive documentation”. That means
anything with that type of impact to the field would have extensive
publicity and published writtings about it and the petitioner.
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 original and results of how it has impacted the
field. General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors which
are not supported by documentary evidence are insufficient.
The petitioner may submit:
• Copies of patents
• Evidence that his contribution is being used nationally or
internationally by others in the field
• Contracts
• Media coverage
• Published articles in major media venues attributing the
discovery to the petitioner
• Awards for the discovery
“
到RFE,感觉像是模板，希望版上各位大神给点建议！
背景：
Paper: 9篇 （7篇一作，2篇2作，其中五篇top journals，两篇一作citation超过一百)
Citation: 250+
Review: 40个
Claim老三样，找了六个独立推荐人写推荐信，两个美国的（其中一个工业界），一个
香港的，一个希腊的，一个德国的，一个西班牙，其中有四个是IEEE Fellow。因为DIY
的推荐信，把能吹得都吹了，个人觉得还算strong,而且六个人都基本没改。在版上看
了好多RFE的case,还有一个有经验的师兄帮我看材料把关，感觉把能避免的都已经避免
了,结果还是被RFE。
第十四天收到了RFE,IO是XM1218。承认review和authorship,质疑contribution。感觉
像是没时间看扔出的模板，不知道是好事还是坏事，更不知道该怎么回复，请各位大神
支支招吧。下文是质疑contribution。
“The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple
evidentiary elements that the beneficiary must satisfy. The first is
evidence of the beneficiary’s contributions (plural) in the field. The
beneficiary must also demonstrate that the contributions are original. The
final requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an
organization. The phrase “major significance” is not superfluous, and,
thus, it has meaning. Contributions of major significance connotes that the
beneficiary’s work has significantly impacted the field, not one
organization or one business location but the field as a whole. The
beneficiary must submit evidence that satisfies all of these elements to
meet the plain language requirements of the criterion.
As evidence the petitioner discussed her published works, her citations, and
submitted letters of support. Publishing is an inherent part of being a
research and publishing does not indicate that one has made a significant
contribution to the field nor do citations, as it relates to this criteria.
As researchers, it is normal to build on the research of others and to
comment on it. Support letters alone cannot form the cornerstone for meeting
the criteria. This criterion requires evidence that the petitioner has made
a significant contribution to the field. The benefit is for the very top of
the field and the evidence must reflect that. One would expect that the
impact to the field would be widely noted in major publications, top award
received, patents awarded, contracts signed with major corporations, or that
it has been widely implemented in the field. This type of impact should
have more evidence that letters of support. That is the reason the Section
203(b)(1)(A) of the INA states impart “…whose achievements have been
recognized in the field through extensive documentation”. That means
anything with that type of impact to the field would have extensive
publicity and published writtings about it and the petitioner.
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 original and results of how it has impacted the
field. General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors which
are not supported by documentary evidence are insufficient.
The petitioner may submit:
• Copies of patents
• Evidence that his contribution is being used nationally or
internationally by others in the field
• Contracts
• Media coverage
• Published articles in major media venues attributing the
discovery to the petitioner
• Awards for the discovery
“
