幽默搞笑 都不知道她生活怎么过... (转载)# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
n*1
1 楼
帮朋友问问大家 这样的rfe应该怎么准备呢？她已经交了9封推荐信了，自认为在推荐
信里已经强调了contribution。应该把之前的信重现organize一下，再强调一下，让以
前的推荐人签字？还是找新的推荐人更好呢？
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
In support of this criterion, you have submitted letters of reference from
various experts in your field. You have also submitted evidence that
establishes that your work has been cited 94 times.
This evidence is not sufficient because while the authors of your letters of
reference do indicate that you are a very talented research scientist, they
do not describe the major significance of your contribution. In addition,
your citations history indicates a moderate level of interest in your work,
but is not, in and of itself, dispositive of the issue of major significance.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are
original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field.
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important.
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the important of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
信里已经强调了contribution。应该把之前的信重现organize一下，再强调一下，让以
前的推荐人签字？还是找新的推荐人更好呢？
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
In support of this criterion, you have submitted letters of reference from
various experts in your field. You have also submitted evidence that
establishes that your work has been cited 94 times.
This evidence is not sufficient because while the authors of your letters of
reference do indicate that you are a very talented research scientist, they
do not describe the major significance of your contribution. In addition,
your citations history indicates a moderate level of interest in your work,
but is not, in and of itself, dispositive of the issue of major significance.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary’s contributions are
original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contribution to the field.
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the beneficiary’s work important.
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary’s contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that the beneficiary’s major significant contribution has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the important of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
