NSC EB1A RFE 求助# Immigration - 落地生根
M*8
1 楼
背景: US top20 EE PhD, 现在大公司R&D. 文章15(IEEE), 审稿30+, 引用120+, 推荐
信5 (来自三个洲，4独立全为美国工程院院士+自己老板)。请的版上知名律师。
Claim老三样, 承认文章, 审稿。RFE contribution:
1.Submitted letters of opinion, but the submission of solicited letters is
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Expert opinion does not purport to
be evidence as to “fact” … individuals with international acclaim should
be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim.
这点最困惑, 为何觉得是solicited letters? 应该如何改进supporting letter ?
2.Papers citing your work do not reflect that your work is singled out as
major significance. Your work is utilized as background information to
others.
Paper都惜字如金，试问有谁会在自己文章中大段吹捧别人的工作？我的很多模型和实
验方法确实都被别人用了，也在PL强调了。请问如何改进能让IO觉得不是background
info. 而是major significance ?
3.质疑律师搞的路透社baseline-citation不可信。请问如果考虑二进宫，是否必须把
这个排名删掉？
4.一千引用
真心求教各位大神！万分感谢！
信5 (来自三个洲，4独立全为美国工程院院士+自己老板)。请的版上知名律师。
Claim老三样, 承认文章, 审稿。RFE contribution:
1.Submitted letters of opinion, but the submission of solicited letters is
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Expert opinion does not purport to
be evidence as to “fact” … individuals with international acclaim should
be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim.
这点最困惑, 为何觉得是solicited letters? 应该如何改进supporting letter ?
2.Papers citing your work do not reflect that your work is singled out as
major significance. Your work is utilized as background information to
others.
Paper都惜字如金，试问有谁会在自己文章中大段吹捧别人的工作？我的很多模型和实
验方法确实都被别人用了，也在PL强调了。请问如何改进能让IO觉得不是background
info. 而是major significance ?
3.质疑律师搞的路透社baseline-citation不可信。请问如果考虑二进宫，是否必须把
这个排名删掉？
4.一千引用
真心求教各位大神！万分感谢！
