求助：TSC EB1A RFE ，不胜感谢！！# Immigration - 落地生根
a*e
1 楼
s*n
2 楼
背景：本人是radiation oncology专业,eb1a 被rfe, 求建议。谢谢！
文章：英文6,中文2，申请时引用176，绝大部分英文引用。
审稿：30左右。
推荐信：6篇（1篇独立）。
Claim 3条：
1. As judge of the work of others
2. Major significance in the field
3. Authorship of scholarly articles
IO 认为第一，第三条满足，但是第二条不满足，理由是：
1. Regarding the scholarly publications, we contends that it is the goal
of any researcher to publish work and that fact alone does not establish
contributions of major significance. In addition, it is noted that the
beneficiary’s scholarly publications have been cited a total of 176 times.
The petitioner has not established that 176 citations are indicative of
contribution of major significance in the field of biomedical research.
Please provide documentary evidence which established how of a total of 176
citations indicates the beneficiary has made contributions of major
significance to the entire field.
2. Regarding the letters of support, we notes that the authors consider
the beneficiary a successful researcher in the field and that his research
findings have assisted various ongoing research efforts; however, the
support letters do not establish the beneficiary has made major
contributions of major significance to the entire field. The evidence does
not establish the beneficiary’s findings have been utilized as the basis
for further research or to aide further research at a more significant level
than findings of other researchers in the field. The authors discuss how
the beneficiary’s research work is in the national interest of the US and
will benefit the US; however, the letter do not articulate how the
beneficiary’s work has already had a significant impact throughout the
field.
It is expected that as EB1A, one must establish an impact that is widespread
and more significant than other researcher’s contributions. Neither the
letters of support nor the other evidence establish the beneficiary has
accomplished this.
现在我的引用攒到210个，比递上去时（176）多44个。有一篇新的文章，impact
factor不高，查了SJR在radiation领域IF可以算最高。求助该怎么回复这个RFE.
非常感谢！！
文章：英文6,中文2，申请时引用176，绝大部分英文引用。
审稿：30左右。
推荐信：6篇（1篇独立）。
Claim 3条：
1. As judge of the work of others
2. Major significance in the field
3. Authorship of scholarly articles
IO 认为第一，第三条满足，但是第二条不满足，理由是：
1. Regarding the scholarly publications, we contends that it is the goal
of any researcher to publish work and that fact alone does not establish
contributions of major significance. In addition, it is noted that the
beneficiary’s scholarly publications have been cited a total of 176 times.
The petitioner has not established that 176 citations are indicative of
contribution of major significance in the field of biomedical research.
Please provide documentary evidence which established how of a total of 176
citations indicates the beneficiary has made contributions of major
significance to the entire field.
2. Regarding the letters of support, we notes that the authors consider
the beneficiary a successful researcher in the field and that his research
findings have assisted various ongoing research efforts; however, the
support letters do not establish the beneficiary has made major
contributions of major significance to the entire field. The evidence does
not establish the beneficiary’s findings have been utilized as the basis
for further research or to aide further research at a more significant level
than findings of other researchers in the field. The authors discuss how
the beneficiary’s research work is in the national interest of the US and
will benefit the US; however, the letter do not articulate how the
beneficiary’s work has already had a significant impact throughout the
field.
It is expected that as EB1A, one must establish an impact that is widespread
and more significant than other researcher’s contributions. Neither the
letters of support nor the other evidence establish the beneficiary has
accomplished this.
现在我的引用攒到210个，比递上去时（176）多44个。有一篇新的文章，impact
factor不高，查了SJR在radiation领域IF可以算最高。求助该怎么回复这个RFE.
非常感谢！！
g*0
3 楼
啥破锅，都是窟窿眼
j*e
4 楼
你确定推荐信不是写错了？只有一封独立？
如果是的话感觉不太好吧。一般最好大部分是独立推荐信。
如果是的话感觉不太好吧。一般最好大部分是独立推荐信。
b*n
5 楼
窟窿眼 is for grill.
As it's Grilling Wok, not really 炒锅.
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
As it's Grilling Wok, not really 炒锅.
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
s*g
6 楼
goal
按说你在PD 以后引用和文章怎加是不能算在内的。你跟你律师商量下
【在 s*****n 的大作中提到】
: 背景：本人是radiation oncology专业,eb1a 被rfe, 求建议。谢谢！
: 文章：英文6,中文2，申请时引用176，绝大部分英文引用。
: 审稿：30左右。
: 推荐信：6篇（1篇独立）。
: Claim 3条：
: 1. As judge of the work of others
: 2. Major significance in the field
: 3. Authorship of scholarly articles
: IO 认为第一，第三条满足，但是第二条不满足，理由是：
: 1. Regarding the scholarly publications, we contends that it is the goal
b*f
7 楼
4块钱！？真够破的：）哈哈
相关阅读
移民局还是很给面子啊citation map请教，老大等大侠请进14孩子 可以申请 EAD吗， 不申请有什么坏处吗？ Thanks哪位可以给贴个写信给editor要求审稿的sampel letter?did your lawyer revise your reference letters?去做finger print 带啥?请问EAD是否可以加急EB1a Approved with background information请问现在是不是还是TSC容易过些？EB1B拿到绿卡后，还要为现在的雇主工作多久才能换工作在问citation: 自己不是第一作者的文章被别人文章里大段引用。怎么发包子排期到了，但perm还在audit，怎么催？能换新的绿卡吗？写了两封email骚扰lockbox要收据，得到回复如下：eb1b大家都有欧洲或其他国家的推荐人吗？问个亲属移民的问题FBI把FP寄过去了485待批时偶尔回中国上班有何弊端???请推荐一个LA体检的医生吧.