关于C# Stock
M*k
1 楼
上周三得到rfe的，自己的case比较弱，但是因为要跳槽，所以硬头皮PP了。 本人，米
国博士，专业 chemical/biochemical engineering, 现在藤校当千老。文章8篇，一作
7篇，引用< 100；中国专利4个，美国专利一个。Review 23次(除了几个次的，其他都
是行业顶尖杂志)。IO承认了我的 authorship 和 judge of other work.但是
contribution被否了。详细的评价如下：
This criterion has not been met because the evident submitted does not show
that your contributions are considered to be of major significance to the
field of endeavor. Many of the letters of support were from individuals who
already knew you, and the letter of support were general in nature, and did
not establish your accomplishments are any greater than your peers. USCIS
does not find the totality of your work has risen to a major significance
within your field. In addition, while the petitioner was a co-inventor to
three Chinese patents and one US patent has been filed, this evidence does
not establish that your work has contributed major significant with the
field.
The petitioner has not established hi work has made a major significant
impact within your field at the time of filing this 1-140 petition.
+ Objective documentary evident of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution to the field
+ Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work importance.
+Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary
’s contributions of major significance within the field.
+ 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.
我感觉IO着重看了我的推荐信，我的推荐信都是自己起草，然后让推荐人写的，感觉自
己比较失败，自吹自擂都没弄好。6个推荐信，4个是独立的，没有找欧洲的。现在看来
要多要几个推荐信。 我专利的license的合同放在exhibit里了，不知道是不是ＩＯ没
有看到。大家帮我出出主意，要如何回答这个IO。 个人感觉IO比较professional，以
后PP的人要小心。
国博士，专业 chemical/biochemical engineering, 现在藤校当千老。文章8篇，一作
7篇，引用< 100；中国专利4个，美国专利一个。Review 23次(除了几个次的，其他都
是行业顶尖杂志)。IO承认了我的 authorship 和 judge of other work.但是
contribution被否了。详细的评价如下：
This criterion has not been met because the evident submitted does not show
that your contributions are considered to be of major significance to the
field of endeavor. Many of the letters of support were from individuals who
already knew you, and the letter of support were general in nature, and did
not establish your accomplishments are any greater than your peers. USCIS
does not find the totality of your work has risen to a major significance
within your field. In addition, while the petitioner was a co-inventor to
three Chinese patents and one US patent has been filed, this evidence does
not establish that your work has contributed major significant with the
field.
The petitioner has not established hi work has made a major significant
impact within your field at the time of filing this 1-140 petition.
+ Objective documentary evident of the significance of the beneficiary’s
contribution to the field
+ Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work importance.
+Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the beneficiary
’s contributions of major significance within the field.
+ 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.
我感觉IO着重看了我的推荐信，我的推荐信都是自己起草，然后让推荐人写的，感觉自
己比较失败，自吹自擂都没弄好。6个推荐信，4个是独立的，没有找欧洲的。现在看来
要多要几个推荐信。 我专利的license的合同放在exhibit里了，不知道是不是ＩＯ没
有看到。大家帮我出出主意，要如何回答这个IO。 个人感觉IO比较professional，以
后PP的人要小心。
