请教: NSC Eb1B, NOID 回复之后，denial (转载)# Immigration - 落地生根
t*d
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 I140 讨论区 】
发信人: nadar (咖啡不加糖), 信区: I140
标 题: 请教: NSC Eb1B, NOID 回复之后，denial
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 9 20:44:16 2018, 美东)
请教版上给我大牛，我下面这种情况应该appeal 还是二进宫？下面写的可能有点乱，
请多担待。
-----------
背景：
a. 数学专业， tenure track ap，
b. 9篇journal + 1 book chapter+ 3篇会议文章， 160 citations （google scholar）
c. 30 + reviews， 参加过一次nsf panel review
claim 老三样： authorship，judge，contribution
------------
timeline:
06/29/2018 initial petition received at NSC
07/06/2018 NOID issued
08/04/2018 NOID response received at NSC
08/07/2018 Denial decision made at NSC
Officer： 0340
----------
1. Initial submission:
Eb1b 是通过学校办的， 学校律师在没给我看过pl之前就投了出去，用的推荐信还是找
工作时用的推荐信 （律师说他以前就是这么办的）。寄出后一周收到noid， the
criterion for authorship and judge were met. The evidence for the
significant contribution has not been established， 因为推荐信用的是找工作的推
荐信，律师被实力打脸。
在totality 分析中，"A review of the evidence in totality does not
sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses the high level of
expertise required for this classification because USCIS does not find that
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic
field."
接着逐一质疑evidence：
a. Judge： Review journal 是routine task for scientists. the evidence
does not establish that the beneficiary's participation in the widespread
peer-review process (a routine process in the field relying on many
scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects international
recognition； 质疑会议中mini-symposium organizer 不算 judge （这条是律师放上
去的，没告诉过我，他认为organizer 就是conference chair。。。）
b. Contribution: 质疑citation不够strong。 同时提出citation 也不是reliable
，要求提供further evidence
最后提出pl中说这个职位是tenure track position， 但employment letter 没提到
“tenure track”这两个字，要求clarify。。。
-----------
2. NOID response:
收到noid之后，根据学校律师建议准备回复材料：
a. Judge: 加了三封editor的推荐信 和 一封email证明 参加nsf panel review。
同时列出我review 过journal 的ranking（ based on eigenfactor score from the
web of science），以及我申过的一些文章的作者以及其所在的机构
b. Contribution： 加了6封expert letter， 其中4封 independent， 5封引过我
的文章。3封美国，2封意大利，1封uk。其中一封来自公司 （用过我的算法，合作过一
篇文章。同时画了油灯展示了引用我文章的国家（>10）, 并列出了相关的top学校和机
构。最后加了我的文章所在的journal的ranking （based on eigenfactor score from
the web of science，大多数是top 5% journal in the field）
Denial letter 回复说 with new evidence， criterion for 老三样 的evidence
have met。
然后开始totality analysis， "A review of the evidence in totality does not
sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses the high level of
expertise required for this classification because USCIS does not find that
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the
academic field."
然后开始质疑各项：
a. Judge： 承认收到3封editor 推荐信， 只能证明我是top，不能证明我是“very
top in the field。 such a role does not set the beneficiary apart from the
field. And you provided no evidence to show that the journals and
publications for which the beneficiary reviews only solicit reviews from
outstanding researchers, not graduate students or postdocs .” support
letter里其实是写了只请outstanding researchers， 不知道他的结论怎么得到的。同
时提出nsf reviewer 每年有4万人，暗示nsf reviewer 不够selective。。。
b. Contribution： 承认收到6封expert letter 和其对立性，以及信中提到我的
research的重要性。但是提出这些evidence 不够sufficient， 不能跟其他的evidence
match， 比如citation。 同时提出我的review 和发的文章所在journal，其 ranking
（based on impact factor 和 eigenfactor） 不能证明journal是top journal。 提
出impact factor 和eigenfactor 不是reliable measure of influence and impact
of the journal 和 work。最重要的objective evidence 是 citation
c. 最后质疑13篇publications 不足以establish outstanding researcher：
“If the beneficiary is to be considered an outstanding professor or
researcher by virtue of his publication record, the petitioner must do more
than simply show that the beneficiary has produced published work. The
publication of thirteen articles as of the time of filing alone does not
illustrate that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding
in the field of mathematics.” 前面的提供的evidence 感觉都被质疑不够
sufficient。
-------------
请问版上各位大牛帮忙分析我的case， 有无硬伤？
接下来怎么办，appeal or reapply？
二进宫的话， 应采取什么样的策略？
能不能推荐几个靠谱律师？
先谢了。
发信人: nadar (咖啡不加糖), 信区: I140
标 题: 请教: NSC Eb1B, NOID 回复之后，denial
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 9 20:44:16 2018, 美东)
请教版上给我大牛，我下面这种情况应该appeal 还是二进宫？下面写的可能有点乱，
请多担待。
-----------
背景：
a. 数学专业， tenure track ap，
b. 9篇journal + 1 book chapter+ 3篇会议文章， 160 citations （google scholar）
c. 30 + reviews， 参加过一次nsf panel review
claim 老三样： authorship，judge，contribution
------------
timeline:
06/29/2018 initial petition received at NSC
07/06/2018 NOID issued
08/04/2018 NOID response received at NSC
08/07/2018 Denial decision made at NSC
Officer： 0340
----------
1. Initial submission:
Eb1b 是通过学校办的， 学校律师在没给我看过pl之前就投了出去，用的推荐信还是找
工作时用的推荐信 （律师说他以前就是这么办的）。寄出后一周收到noid， the
criterion for authorship and judge were met. The evidence for the
significant contribution has not been established， 因为推荐信用的是找工作的推
荐信，律师被实力打脸。
在totality 分析中，"A review of the evidence in totality does not
sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses the high level of
expertise required for this classification because USCIS does not find that
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic
field."
接着逐一质疑evidence：
a. Judge： Review journal 是routine task for scientists. the evidence
does not establish that the beneficiary's participation in the widespread
peer-review process (a routine process in the field relying on many
scientists) exceeds that of other researchers or reflects international
recognition； 质疑会议中mini-symposium organizer 不算 judge （这条是律师放上
去的，没告诉过我，他认为organizer 就是conference chair。。。）
b. Contribution: 质疑citation不够strong。 同时提出citation 也不是reliable
，要求提供further evidence
最后提出pl中说这个职位是tenure track position， 但employment letter 没提到
“tenure track”这两个字，要求clarify。。。
-----------
2. NOID response:
收到noid之后，根据学校律师建议准备回复材料：
a. Judge: 加了三封editor的推荐信 和 一封email证明 参加nsf panel review。
同时列出我review 过journal 的ranking（ based on eigenfactor score from the
web of science），以及我申过的一些文章的作者以及其所在的机构
b. Contribution： 加了6封expert letter， 其中4封 independent， 5封引过我
的文章。3封美国，2封意大利，1封uk。其中一封来自公司 （用过我的算法，合作过一
篇文章。同时画了油灯展示了引用我文章的国家（>10）, 并列出了相关的top学校和机
构。最后加了我的文章所在的journal的ranking （based on eigenfactor score from
the web of science，大多数是top 5% journal in the field）
Denial letter 回复说 with new evidence， criterion for 老三样 的evidence
have met。
然后开始totality analysis， "A review of the evidence in totality does not
sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses the high level of
expertise required for this classification because USCIS does not find that
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in the
academic field."
然后开始质疑各项：
a. Judge： 承认收到3封editor 推荐信， 只能证明我是top，不能证明我是“very
top in the field。 such a role does not set the beneficiary apart from the
field. And you provided no evidence to show that the journals and
publications for which the beneficiary reviews only solicit reviews from
outstanding researchers, not graduate students or postdocs .” support
letter里其实是写了只请outstanding researchers， 不知道他的结论怎么得到的。同
时提出nsf reviewer 每年有4万人，暗示nsf reviewer 不够selective。。。
b. Contribution： 承认收到6封expert letter 和其对立性，以及信中提到我的
research的重要性。但是提出这些evidence 不够sufficient， 不能跟其他的evidence
match， 比如citation。 同时提出我的review 和发的文章所在journal，其 ranking
（based on impact factor 和 eigenfactor） 不能证明journal是top journal。 提
出impact factor 和eigenfactor 不是reliable measure of influence and impact
of the journal 和 work。最重要的objective evidence 是 citation
c. 最后质疑13篇publications 不足以establish outstanding researcher：
“If the beneficiary is to be considered an outstanding professor or
researcher by virtue of his publication record, the petitioner must do more
than simply show that the beneficiary has produced published work. The
publication of thirteen articles as of the time of filing alone does not
illustrate that the beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding
in the field of mathematics.” 前面的提供的evidence 感觉都被质疑不够
sufficient。
-------------
请问版上各位大牛帮忙分析我的case， 有无硬伤？
接下来怎么办，appeal or reapply？
二进宫的话， 应采取什么样的策略？
能不能推荐几个靠谱律师？
先谢了。
