EB1A NSC 二进宫RFE求助# Immigration - 落地生根
f*n
1 楼
2015年第一次递交Eb1a，2016年 non-pp 被0214拒了。今年5月份又递了一次，最近pp
后悲催的又被0317 RFE, 听说0317也是个killer…
我的大致情况如下：
文章15 （一作11），最好的是共同一作的PNAS，会议13个，引用275 （google
scholar+CNKI）,审稿61。 claim的是Biomolecular Engineering领域，现在是postdoc
找了6个推荐人 （5个是独立推荐人，都引用过我的文章）， 3美国，1英国，1荷兰，1
韩国。2个是院士
挖掘的亮点：
1. 3篇文章1-10% top cited, 5篇文章top 1%, 引用来自27个国家和top university之
类的
2. 列举了23个notable citation, 包括大段引用，4篇nature系列的杂志引用，同一个
组多次引用，implementation等
3. 一篇文章有10多个媒体报道，交的时候提了2个
4. 项目funding 来自NSF, Department of Energy多个部门
-RFE letter说我的推荐信太general, 可是我的推荐信都特意列举了引用的例子而且每
封信还加上了其他notable citation examples from other people. 不太明白为什么
说太general….. 再增加3篇推荐信够吗？
-RFE说文章数不如引用更有说服力，可是我明明提了引用数，只不过没有去强调，怕又
说没有1000 citations
-感觉可以挖掘的亮点都提了，回复RFE的时候可以重新组织下已经提交的材料吗？
-之前有2年多在公司做的项目，有3个pending patents, 提交的时候没有写，回复RFE
的时候可以提下吗？
请大牛门指点下如何回复RFE, 有回复0317经验的可以分享下吗？不胜感激
RFE 原文“ You submitted 6 letters of opinion, but they do not establish
original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters are
devoted to an overview of the beneficiary’s published research but do not
give definitive examples of how the beneficiary, through his research or
other means, has significantly impacted his field at the time this petition
was field. Moreover, your original research contributions in the field must
be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence…
The record shows that you published 15 scholarly papers in the field. It is
worthwhile to note, however, that publications are not as reliable a
measurement in determining a researcher’s influence on the academic field
as frequent, independent citations of his work. Indeed, USCIS considers the
number of independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in
determining the alien’s original contributions to the academic field.
Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it is difficult
to determine a published work’s importance or influence. And so, USCIS has
concluded that, while your research demonstrates original contributions in
the field, you need to provide evidence to establish the contributions are
of major significance….”
后悲催的又被0317 RFE, 听说0317也是个killer…
我的大致情况如下：
文章15 （一作11），最好的是共同一作的PNAS，会议13个，引用275 （google
scholar+CNKI）,审稿61。 claim的是Biomolecular Engineering领域，现在是postdoc
找了6个推荐人 （5个是独立推荐人，都引用过我的文章）， 3美国，1英国，1荷兰，1
韩国。2个是院士
挖掘的亮点：
1. 3篇文章1-10% top cited, 5篇文章top 1%, 引用来自27个国家和top university之
类的
2. 列举了23个notable citation, 包括大段引用，4篇nature系列的杂志引用，同一个
组多次引用，implementation等
3. 一篇文章有10多个媒体报道，交的时候提了2个
4. 项目funding 来自NSF, Department of Energy多个部门
-RFE letter说我的推荐信太general, 可是我的推荐信都特意列举了引用的例子而且每
封信还加上了其他notable citation examples from other people. 不太明白为什么
说太general….. 再增加3篇推荐信够吗？
-RFE说文章数不如引用更有说服力，可是我明明提了引用数，只不过没有去强调，怕又
说没有1000 citations
-感觉可以挖掘的亮点都提了，回复RFE的时候可以重新组织下已经提交的材料吗？
-之前有2年多在公司做的项目，有3个pending patents, 提交的时候没有写，回复RFE
的时候可以提下吗？
请大牛门指点下如何回复RFE, 有回复0317经验的可以分享下吗？不胜感激
RFE 原文“ You submitted 6 letters of opinion, but they do not establish
original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters are
devoted to an overview of the beneficiary’s published research but do not
give definitive examples of how the beneficiary, through his research or
other means, has significantly impacted his field at the time this petition
was field. Moreover, your original research contributions in the field must
be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence…
The record shows that you published 15 scholarly papers in the field. It is
worthwhile to note, however, that publications are not as reliable a
measurement in determining a researcher’s influence on the academic field
as frequent, independent citations of his work. Indeed, USCIS considers the
number of independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in
determining the alien’s original contributions to the academic field.
Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it is difficult
to determine a published work’s importance or influence. And so, USCIS has
concluded that, while your research demonstrates original contributions in
the field, you need to provide evidence to establish the contributions are
of major significance….”
