NSC EB1A PP RFE by 0002 (2017-01-12)# Immigration - 落地生根
J*1
1 楼
背景介绍：
42篇paper，18篇一作，总引用470，第一作者文章引用290, 未区分自引他引。
Review共15次10个期刊。8篇推荐信，一篇研究生时老板，二篇postdoc时老板，五篇独
立信来自美国（3篇），西班牙和中国，只有1篇来自引用过我文章的推荐人。
DIY，claim老三样，30/12/2016 efile，PP RD, 01/09/2017 RFE, NSC 0002 质疑了
contribution的original和significant， RFE如下。
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has provided:
-Letters from peers and colleagues
-Evidence of conference participation
-Publication and citation records
The 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. 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.
-Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work important
-Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution(s) has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited
-Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may included but not limited to:
- Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
- Licensed technology being used by others
- Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much details as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavor which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
除此之外，RFE 里还介绍了两步法，要证明has sustained national or
international acclaim, 以及has achievements that have been recognized in the
field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one of the small
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor 但是也没提
到是否通过了这个两步法。
我的exhibit 是recommendation letter，CV, Journal publication (包含发表文章影
响因子和排名，油灯图), conference, citation example, review，Journal Ranking
, google scholar search。对于这个两步法的，sustained internationl acclaim 和
top，需要单独回应吗？
请大家提提回复建议, 多谢！
再就是求gracewine (grace)的联系方式，考古发现我的情况和他很相似，想咨询一些
经验。再次感谢。
42篇paper，18篇一作，总引用470，第一作者文章引用290, 未区分自引他引。
Review共15次10个期刊。8篇推荐信，一篇研究生时老板，二篇postdoc时老板，五篇独
立信来自美国（3篇），西班牙和中国，只有1篇来自引用过我文章的推荐人。
DIY，claim老三样，30/12/2016 efile，PP RD, 01/09/2017 RFE, NSC 0002 质疑了
contribution的original和significant， RFE如下。
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has provided:
-Letters from peers and colleagues
-Evidence of conference participation
-Publication and citation records
The 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. 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.
-Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work important
-Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution(s) has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited
-Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may included but not limited to:
- Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products
- Licensed technology being used by others
- Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much details as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavor which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
除此之外，RFE 里还介绍了两步法，要证明has sustained national or
international acclaim, 以及has achievements that have been recognized in the
field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one of the small
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor 但是也没提
到是否通过了这个两步法。
我的exhibit 是recommendation letter，CV, Journal publication (包含发表文章影
响因子和排名，油灯图), conference, citation example, review，Journal Ranking
, google scholar search。对于这个两步法的，sustained internationl acclaim 和
top，需要单独回应吗？
请大家提提回复建议, 多谢！
再就是求gracewine (grace)的联系方式，考古发现我的情况和他很相似，想咨询一些
经验。再次感谢。
