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
文科eb1a case 求评估及律师推荐SR求教NSC二月RD【2018年1月第11绿】I-485 approval notice+面经NSC/ EB1B I-140 PP Approved Wegreened【2018年1月第14,15绿】报个时间线Re: I-765被拒【2017年12月第99绿】麻州 485面试H4 pending 可以申H1b吗？需要多名peer reviewer (GWAS, SNP analysis)485 pending的时候可以renew护照吗？pp15天昨天收到绿卡批准的email【2018年1月第9,10绿】 报绿485 SR 回复，请问这是模板么？2018 1月2 洛杉矶485面试转让生物信息学审稿：A pipeline for markers selection using【2017年12月第100,101绿】报绿：2017请教怎么查SR status485面试问题EB1A 485 pending期间能否用EAD换工作