搞生物的人很喜欢类比论证# Biology - 生物学
c*a
1 楼
今天收到RFE，承认authorship 和 review， 否认contribution, 主要是说不能证明
of major significance. 以下是我的case 和 RFE，我有些问题，希望各位给些意见。
我的背景：
EE/CS 16 journal/confernece papers
about 100 citations from 24 countries,
dataset requests from 15 countries
70+ reviews，
7 recommendation letters
1，TSC XM1172 是否是新人？我考古了一下，好像没人提到？
2，IO只就推荐信挑了毛病，说contribution 没有 of major significance, 根本没提
我提交的其他objective documentary evidence. 我可不可以找同样的推荐人重新写推
荐信，还是非得要不同推荐人的信？
3, 可能因为我提供的材料太多，IO好像没有仔细看。是否可以按照IO的要求重提一遍
，再从头到尾的Exhibit一遍，还是取其精华，再加上新的材料，再说 for more
information, please check my original submission? USCIS 应该还有我的initial
filing 吧？
RFE 关于contribution 的内容是
Evidence of your original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or
business-related contributions of major significant in the field
You submitted seven recommendation letters in support of this criterion.
The plain language of the regulation at 8.C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires
that the petitioner’s contributions be both original and of major
significance.
A review of the evidence shows that the support letters do not show that
your contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field
of endeavor. For example, Professor XX states “…xx...” However, he/she
does not explain how your research is “significant” or describe the future
impact of your research to the field.
Likewise, [listing several other writers’ testimonies]… Reference letters
submitted do not specifically identify how your contributions have
influenced the field as a whole; rather the letters describe your experience
, accomplishments and talent as a researcher. While the testimonies describe
you as being among the very best researchers who achieve some “first” in
the research area, no one else indicated that your work has constituted a
major significance in the field of endeavor or how they significantly
impacted the field. There is no evidence to show the degree of influence
your contribution has made to the field.
As to the patents, the receipt of patents is not sufficient to establish
that you made an original contribution of major significance in the field.
The grant of a patent demonstrates only that an invention is original. A
patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some
degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York Dep’t
. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Commr. 1998). Rather the
significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Id.
Based on the evidence submitted, this criterion has not been met because the
evidence submitted does not show that your contributions are considered to
be of major significance in the field of endeavor.
To assist in determining whether your contributions are original and of
major significance, you may submit:
• [The official list…]
of major significance. 以下是我的case 和 RFE，我有些问题，希望各位给些意见。
我的背景：
EE/CS 16 journal/confernece papers
about 100 citations from 24 countries,
dataset requests from 15 countries
70+ reviews，
7 recommendation letters
1，TSC XM1172 是否是新人？我考古了一下，好像没人提到？
2，IO只就推荐信挑了毛病，说contribution 没有 of major significance, 根本没提
我提交的其他objective documentary evidence. 我可不可以找同样的推荐人重新写推
荐信，还是非得要不同推荐人的信？
3, 可能因为我提供的材料太多，IO好像没有仔细看。是否可以按照IO的要求重提一遍
，再从头到尾的Exhibit一遍，还是取其精华，再加上新的材料，再说 for more
information, please check my original submission? USCIS 应该还有我的initial
filing 吧？
RFE 关于contribution 的内容是
Evidence of your original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or
business-related contributions of major significant in the field
You submitted seven recommendation letters in support of this criterion.
The plain language of the regulation at 8.C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires
that the petitioner’s contributions be both original and of major
significance.
A review of the evidence shows that the support letters do not show that
your contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field
of endeavor. For example, Professor XX states “…xx...” However, he/she
does not explain how your research is “significant” or describe the future
impact of your research to the field.
Likewise, [listing several other writers’ testimonies]… Reference letters
submitted do not specifically identify how your contributions have
influenced the field as a whole; rather the letters describe your experience
, accomplishments and talent as a researcher. While the testimonies describe
you as being among the very best researchers who achieve some “first” in
the research area, no one else indicated that your work has constituted a
major significance in the field of endeavor or how they significantly
impacted the field. There is no evidence to show the degree of influence
your contribution has made to the field.
As to the patents, the receipt of patents is not sufficient to establish
that you made an original contribution of major significance in the field.
The grant of a patent demonstrates only that an invention is original. A
patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some
degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York Dep’t
. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Commr. 1998). Rather the
significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Id.
Based on the evidence submitted, this criterion has not been met because the
evidence submitted does not show that your contributions are considered to
be of major significance in the field of endeavor.
To assist in determining whether your contributions are original and of
major significance, you may submit:
• [The official list…]
