小偷潜入饭店通宵炒菜，被抓时这么说# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
v*n
1 楼
4月提交了EB1A，claim老三样，直接寄NSC，没有pp，这周收到RFE。IO 0134承认文章
和review，质疑contribution。在这里诚心请教一下大家该如何应对。因为DIY，有点
无措。尽管背景很弱，但是还是想认真回复一下，碰碰运气。
首先赞速度（不到2个月就出结果了），但是对IO的工作态度非常无语，我明明只是
claim了三样，RFE信里竟然说我claim了奖项。其实我只是把几个会议和fellowship作
为支撑contribution的证据，并没有单独claim。
背景：
地球环境科学（大气），美国phd
7篇文章（6一作），另外一篇中文没有claim，没有顶刊，文章都是近几年的，总引用
低的感人，100左右，在PL里没有拿总引用说话，只是把单篇文章的引用数和行业平均
来比。
6封推荐信（5独立）+1封期刊编辑的推荐信。推荐人来自多个国家，大都是本领域熟悉
和引用过我的工作的。
审稿25篇，最高IF5。
奖项都不值得单独claim，无非是会议的小grant和一个fellowship
因为背景太弱，在contribution上我花了很多功夫找亮点，包括
1. 一篇关于气溶胶释放的模式的文章被美国EPA的污染模式（CMAQ）采用，在他们文章
的5个不同的地方引用和借鉴。
2. 我的工作大都是参与NASA的项目，在这一点上阐述了很多对美国政府研究机构有贡
献的东西。
3. 我的一篇文章被国际气象组织的区域环境报告大段引用。
4.其他的都是采用前辈的套路，比如被顶刊，教科书和百科全书引用，以及摘抄推荐信
里的段落。
RFE质疑contribution的段落：
You have provided evidence of:
• your published scholarly research, which includes 28 published
articles and conference abstracts;
• 66 citations to your published research;
• LCarivate Analytics' Baseline-Citation Rates and Baseline-
Percentiles;
• examples of notable and international citations to your published
research; and,
• seven letters of recommendation from others in the field.
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor.
While the evidence supports that you have made original contributions to the
field, based on the publishing of your scholarly articles in noted journals
in the field, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that your
contributions are of major significance to the field at large. USCIS has
reviewed the letters of recommendation submitted on your behalf. These
letters, while they speak well of you and your contributions to the field,
are insufficient to demonstrate the significance of your contributions.
Essentially, the evidence to support the claims made in these letters does
not support that your contributions are of major significance.
The record shows that you published scholarly papers, but it is worthwhile
to note that publications are not as reliable a gauge in determining your
contributions in the field as the number of citations your publications have
garnered. Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it is
difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence ifthere is
little to no evidence that others have relied on a scientist's findings.
And so, upon examining your citatory history, we have concluded
that, while your research demonstrates original contributions in the field,
the number of citations of your work does not establish contributions of
major significance in the field.
Your citatory history shows that you are first author of only four papers,
crediting you with 66 citations as first author. In your field, as you know,
the first or primary author is usually the scientist with the idea, the
moving force behind the research, and who performs most of the writing and
research, with the assistance of the other authors. It is the first author
who is primarily responsible and accountable for the findings and who
receives most of the acclaim or censure. We believe that you contributed to
the research and writing, but to be primary author of only seven of your
cited papers does not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the
field and, as a result, that your "achievements have been recognized in the
field of expertise."
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(s)
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:
• Contracts with companies using the beneficiary's products;
• Licensed technology being used by others;
• 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 importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
和review，质疑contribution。在这里诚心请教一下大家该如何应对。因为DIY，有点
无措。尽管背景很弱，但是还是想认真回复一下，碰碰运气。
首先赞速度（不到2个月就出结果了），但是对IO的工作态度非常无语，我明明只是
claim了三样，RFE信里竟然说我claim了奖项。其实我只是把几个会议和fellowship作
为支撑contribution的证据，并没有单独claim。
背景：
地球环境科学（大气），美国phd
7篇文章（6一作），另外一篇中文没有claim，没有顶刊，文章都是近几年的，总引用
低的感人，100左右，在PL里没有拿总引用说话，只是把单篇文章的引用数和行业平均
来比。
6封推荐信（5独立）+1封期刊编辑的推荐信。推荐人来自多个国家，大都是本领域熟悉
和引用过我的工作的。
审稿25篇，最高IF5。
奖项都不值得单独claim，无非是会议的小grant和一个fellowship
因为背景太弱，在contribution上我花了很多功夫找亮点，包括
1. 一篇关于气溶胶释放的模式的文章被美国EPA的污染模式（CMAQ）采用，在他们文章
的5个不同的地方引用和借鉴。
2. 我的工作大都是参与NASA的项目，在这一点上阐述了很多对美国政府研究机构有贡
献的东西。
3. 我的一篇文章被国际气象组织的区域环境报告大段引用。
4.其他的都是采用前辈的套路，比如被顶刊，教科书和百科全书引用，以及摘抄推荐信
里的段落。
RFE质疑contribution的段落：
You have provided evidence of:
• your published scholarly research, which includes 28 published
articles and conference abstracts;
• 66 citations to your published research;
• LCarivate Analytics' Baseline-Citation Rates and Baseline-
Percentiles;
• examples of notable and international citations to your published
research; and,
• seven letters of recommendation from others in the field.
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor.
While the evidence supports that you have made original contributions to the
field, based on the publishing of your scholarly articles in noted journals
in the field, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that your
contributions are of major significance to the field at large. USCIS has
reviewed the letters of recommendation submitted on your behalf. These
letters, while they speak well of you and your contributions to the field,
are insufficient to demonstrate the significance of your contributions.
Essentially, the evidence to support the claims made in these letters does
not support that your contributions are of major significance.
The record shows that you published scholarly papers, but it is worthwhile
to note that publications are not as reliable a gauge in determining your
contributions in the field as the number of citations your publications have
garnered. Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but it is
difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence ifthere is
little to no evidence that others have relied on a scientist's findings.
And so, upon examining your citatory history, we have concluded
that, while your research demonstrates original contributions in the field,
the number of citations of your work does not establish contributions of
major significance in the field.
Your citatory history shows that you are first author of only four papers,
crediting you with 66 citations as first author. In your field, as you know,
the first or primary author is usually the scientist with the idea, the
moving force behind the research, and who performs most of the writing and
research, with the assistance of the other authors. It is the first author
who is primarily responsible and accountable for the findings and who
receives most of the acclaim or censure. We believe that you contributed to
the research and writing, but to be primary author of only seven of your
cited papers does not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the
field and, as a result, that your "achievements have been recognized in the
field of expertise."
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(s)
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:
• Contracts with companies using the beneficiary's products;
• Licensed technology being used by others;
• 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 importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
