b*s
2 楼
rt
m*l
3 楼
我和你同一天的RFE。 我的是0214。
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 01/05 PP RD， 01/16 RFE，还不知道哪个IO，下周收到信再看。
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 01/05 PP RD， 01/16 RFE，还不知道哪个IO，下周收到信再看。
S*X
4 楼
锅已经亏废了吧。。。希望它有及时跑。。
w*i
5 楼
还不知道， 你打算withdraw还是怼回去
【在 m*******l 的大作中提到】
: 我和你同一天的RFE。 我的是0214。
【在 m*******l 的大作中提到】
: 我和你同一天的RFE。 我的是0214。
w*i
6 楼
这算模版RFE么？
m*l
7 楼
模板回复 我的和你一样的 我律师让我撤了投到TSC
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 这算模版RFE么？
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 这算模版RFE么？
w*i
8 楼
一早收到邮件看到被毙了，没啥可说的，子弹都打光了，报告个数据点吧。
通常隔多久再file比价好？ 三个月还是6个月
04/12 Denied.
04/09 Response RD
01/05 PP RD， 01/16 RFE by 0738。
基本情况，file140的时候21 paper，420 citations，9审稿。
0738 承认paper，审稿，承认contribution的original，质疑major significance，因
为没有thousands citations。
我怀疑可能是RL没写好，没有详细解释为什么我的工作有major significance。
看起来对0738而言ISI的ciation rate没啥用，媒体报道，highlights里面的评价也没
啥用。
现在打算重新挖掘一边亮点，争取再找两个RL，但是thousands citations如何回应，
求建议，多谢。
XXXX letters of opinion, his publications and citatory history are
acknowledged, but the evidence, while demonstrating original contributions,
does not establish original contributions of major significance in a field
whose leading scientists (according to Google Scholar) have garnered
citations numbered in the thousands. Moreover, letters alone are
insufficient to prove the beneficiary's original contributions to the field.
The Thomson Reuters' baselines-citation rates, showing that the beneficiary'
s papers are frequently cited for their published years in the field, are
noted. However, that tool is useful for broadly determining the citatory
rates for each field, but we use Google Scholar because it allows us to
compare the beneficiary's citatory history with that of scientists with whom
the beneficiary has collaborated, who have cited him, and, more accurately,
who are in his specific field. Google Scholar shows that scientists who
have risen to the very top of his field have garnered citations numbered in
the thousands. Since the beneficiary has been in the field a short time, it
is very difficult for him to have made contributions of major significance.
But the El I visa classification is intended for "that small percentage who
have risen [not will rise] to the very top of the field of endeavor";
furthermore, in the final analysis, the initial evidence must establish that
the beneficiary has "sustained national or international acclaim and that [
the beneficiary's] achievements have been recognized in the field of
expertise." Response to the beneficiary's publications suggests an
auspicious start, but his original contributions do not yet place the
beneficiary among the very top scientists of his field or, in the final
analysis, demonstrate sustained acclaim.
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.
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
通常隔多久再file比价好？ 三个月还是6个月
04/12 Denied.
04/09 Response RD
01/05 PP RD， 01/16 RFE by 0738。
基本情况，file140的时候21 paper，420 citations，9审稿。
0738 承认paper，审稿，承认contribution的original，质疑major significance，因
为没有thousands citations。
我怀疑可能是RL没写好，没有详细解释为什么我的工作有major significance。
看起来对0738而言ISI的ciation rate没啥用，媒体报道，highlights里面的评价也没
啥用。
现在打算重新挖掘一边亮点，争取再找两个RL，但是thousands citations如何回应，
求建议，多谢。
XXXX letters of opinion, his publications and citatory history are
acknowledged, but the evidence, while demonstrating original contributions,
does not establish original contributions of major significance in a field
whose leading scientists (according to Google Scholar) have garnered
citations numbered in the thousands. Moreover, letters alone are
insufficient to prove the beneficiary's original contributions to the field.
The Thomson Reuters' baselines-citation rates, showing that the beneficiary'
s papers are frequently cited for their published years in the field, are
noted. However, that tool is useful for broadly determining the citatory
rates for each field, but we use Google Scholar because it allows us to
compare the beneficiary's citatory history with that of scientists with whom
the beneficiary has collaborated, who have cited him, and, more accurately,
who are in his specific field. Google Scholar shows that scientists who
have risen to the very top of his field have garnered citations numbered in
the thousands. Since the beneficiary has been in the field a short time, it
is very difficult for him to have made contributions of major significance.
But the El I visa classification is intended for "that small percentage who
have risen [not will rise] to the very top of the field of endeavor";
furthermore, in the final analysis, the initial evidence must establish that
the beneficiary has "sustained national or international acclaim and that [
the beneficiary's] achievements have been recognized in the field of
expertise." Response to the beneficiary's publications suggests an
auspicious start, but his original contributions do not yet place the
beneficiary among the very top scientists of his field or, in the final
analysis, demonstrate sustained acclaim.
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.
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
m*l
9 楼
我和你同一天的RFE。 我的是0214。
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 01/05 PP RD， 01/16 RFE，还不知道哪个IO，下周收到信再看。
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 01/05 PP RD， 01/16 RFE，还不知道哪个IO，下周收到信再看。
w*i
10 楼
还不知道， 你打算withdraw还是怼回去
【在 m*******l 的大作中提到】
: 我和你同一天的RFE。 我的是0214。
【在 m*******l 的大作中提到】
: 我和你同一天的RFE。 我的是0214。
w*i
11 楼
这算模版RFE么？
m*l
12 楼
模板回复 我的和你一样的 我律师让我撤了投到TSC
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 这算模版RFE么？
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 这算模版RFE么？
w*i
13 楼
回复RFE后被denied了
0738新进杀手？
0738新进杀手？
C*h
14 楼
NSC EB1A最近没有过的。不要再试了。
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 回复RFE后被denied了
: 0738新进杀手？
【在 w******i 的大作中提到】
: 回复RFE后被denied了
: 0738新进杀手？
l*8
15 楼
NSC如果没有3000+的引用，就别强调citation了，从其他方面强调significance吧
f*t
16 楼
我擦 这rfe内容跟我的一个字都没差。auspicious start。。。最后denial信我估计我
俩的也是除了姓名和领域 都会一字不差!
俩的也是除了姓名和领域 都会一字不差!
m*l
17 楼
我回复0214的RFE了，在等结果。 别悲剧啊
【在 f*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我擦 这rfe内容跟我的一个字都没差。auspicious start。。。最后denial信我估计我
: 俩的也是除了姓名和领域 都会一字不差!
【在 f*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我擦 这rfe内容跟我的一个字都没差。auspicious start。。。最后denial信我估计我
: 俩的也是除了姓名和领域 都会一字不差!
m*l
18 楼
对了，楼主，你的 case的timeline在哪里查的？
w*i
19 楼
my uscis, 注册后会有手机短信跟邮件提示
【在 m*******l 的大作中提到】
: 对了，楼主，你的 case的timeline在哪里查的？
【在 m*******l 的大作中提到】
: 对了，楼主，你的 case的timeline在哪里查的？
w*i
20 楼
但是自己不提，IO也会去看google scholar
【在 l**********8 的大作中提到】
: NSC如果没有3000+的引用，就别强调citation了，从其他方面强调significance吧
【在 l**********8 的大作中提到】
: NSC如果没有3000+的引用，就别强调citation了，从其他方面强调significance吧
w*i
21 楼
收到denial letter, 还不如你，只说leading scientist 有thousands citations，连
名字都懒得提
模版RFE，模版Decision letter, 想总结下经验都没法下手。
【在 f*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我擦 这rfe内容跟我的一个字都没差。auspicious start。。。最后denial信我估计我
: 俩的也是除了姓名和领域 都会一字不差!
名字都懒得提
模版RFE，模版Decision letter, 想总结下经验都没法下手。
【在 f*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我擦 这rfe内容跟我的一个字都没差。auspicious start。。。最后denial信我估计我
: 俩的也是除了姓名和领域 都会一字不差!
相关阅读
AMSC 可以入一些了么?什么时候才能攒够钱开个马金账户道琼斯绿啦！！！！！！！！！！！！！S**t, trading violation 进黑屋了didida，dididadadiiiii同时重仓FNMA/PLUG/MNKD/JCP,太危险？教授英明毁于yoku？换位想一下我也高兴了昨天的撤军貌似撤的不错啊。TMMI---请搞图像压缩的大牛指点一下2014年4月份的操作模式All in FB 了FNMA 龙霸EXTR 明天暴涨5%MU这样猪了Re: 乖乖！1983年邓小平严打，处决了2.4万人 (转载)碰上这种天气，就跟自己说，要贪婪有些形势我不能说的太清楚昨天我刚说team work就是忘掉价格，该卖的坚决卖想起一件事 (转载)