华人圈子真小# PhotoGear - 摄影器材
M*2
1 楼
https://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/33905477.html 之前背景帖链接
今天律师发过来RFE信，至今还没有收到信。对于我担心的文章数量问题，IO并没有表
示异议。主要质疑三个方面：
1) whether you will continue to work in your field, 说我的DS2019上面我说
short term scholar，其实我说J1 的postdoc
2) whether your work will substantially benefit prospectively the United
States,
and 3) the original contributions of major significance criterion.
关于1和2，律师说让博后老板写封信，本不想惊动他，看来是不行了。
关于3 contribution部分，在PL中我有列举很多 多次及大段引用，但都是一句话总结
别人怎么用的，没有引用原文，没有深入具体的延伸，交之前就觉得这是个问题，一下
是信里关于contribution的部分， 所谓是rfe理由：
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. 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.
• 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 works 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 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.
似乎这个IO很注重实际应用，但我作癌症基础研究，除了引用，现在还没有具体但应用
啊。请大家多提意见
今天律师发过来RFE信，至今还没有收到信。对于我担心的文章数量问题，IO并没有表
示异议。主要质疑三个方面：
1) whether you will continue to work in your field, 说我的DS2019上面我说
short term scholar，其实我说J1 的postdoc
2) whether your work will substantially benefit prospectively the United
States,
and 3) the original contributions of major significance criterion.
关于1和2，律师说让博后老板写封信，本不想惊动他，看来是不行了。
关于3 contribution部分，在PL中我有列举很多 多次及大段引用，但都是一句话总结
别人怎么用的，没有引用原文，没有深入具体的延伸，交之前就觉得这是个问题，一下
是信里关于contribution的部分， 所谓是rfe理由：
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. 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.
• 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 works 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 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.
似乎这个IO很注重实际应用，但我作癌症基础研究，除了引用，现在还没有具体但应用
啊。请大家多提意见
