求 eb1b RFE 模板# Immigration - 落地生根
s*o
1 楼
b*g
2 楼
你啥时候RFE了？
【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】
: EB1A 的模板在：
: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Request%20for%20Evi
: 求EB1B的。
: 我RFE在：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32133277.html
【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】
: EB1A 的模板在：
: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Request%20for%20Evi
: 求EB1B的。
: 我RFE在：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32133277.html
T*y
3 楼
Oh, here it is. I have never really read it before.
As to EB1B, I don't think that there's any published template. The purpose
of them publishing the EB1A RFE template was to solicit feedback.
http://tinyurl.com/3eemsod
According to the link above (Last updated: 12/01/2011), they are still
reviewing the EB1B template.
BTW, how did you put a hyper-link above?
【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】
: EB1A 的模板在：
: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Request%20for%20Evi
: 求EB1B的。
: 我RFE在：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32133277.html
As to EB1B, I don't think that there's any published template. The purpose
of them publishing the EB1A RFE template was to solicit feedback.
http://tinyurl.com/3eemsod
According to the link above (Last updated: 12/01/2011), they are still
reviewing the EB1B template.
BTW, how did you put a hyper-link above?
【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】
: EB1A 的模板在：
: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Request%20for%20Evi
: 求EB1B的。
: 我RFE在：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32133277.html
T*y
4 楼
With all that said, your RFE seems to be following this EB1A template, and
they might have some internal in-explicit rule.
Your case really is very strong, and big bless!
they might have some internal in-explicit rule.
Your case really is very strong, and big bless!
s*o
5 楼
我求这个模板是有原因的。可惜只有EB1A，没有1B。
通过看模板和RFE的区别，模板同时强调significance and orignality。RFE基本上不
提major significance，却一直提orignal。我认为IO承认我贡献的重要性，但是对原
创新提出疑问。我回答要针对orignal来，而不是针对significant来，不知道对不对。
-------------------
谈到CONTRIBUTION，EB1A的模板上说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: 省略。。
。Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work important.
我的RFE上说：This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted
does not show that the beneficiary has made original scientific or scholarly
research contributions. To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's
contributions are original, you may submit:
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary's work original.
- Testimony and/or support letters from experts
- Evidence that the beneficiary's original contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
- Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others.
并且注明：letters must provide as much detail as possible about ..
contribution and must explain in detail, how the contribuiton was "orignal".
General statement regarding the importance of the endeavors are
insufficient. 模板上多了how they were of “major” significance，我这里没有。
这个和EB1A模板上不同，how the contribution was “original” (not merely
replicating the work of others) and how they were of “major” significance.
通过看模板和RFE的区别，模板同时强调significance and orignality。RFE基本上不
提major significance，却一直提orignal。我认为IO承认我贡献的重要性，但是对原
创新提出疑问。我回答要针对orignal来，而不是针对significant来，不知道对不对。
-------------------
谈到CONTRIBUTION，EB1A的模板上说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: 省略。。
。Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary’s work important.
我的RFE上说：This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted
does not show that the beneficiary has made original scientific or scholarly
research contributions. To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's
contributions are original, you may submit:
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary's work original.
- Testimony and/or support letters from experts
- Evidence that the beneficiary's original contribution has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
- Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others.
并且注明：letters must provide as much detail as possible about ..
contribution and must explain in detail, how the contribuiton was "orignal".
General statement regarding the importance of the endeavors are
insufficient. 模板上多了how they were of “major” significance，我这里没有。
这个和EB1A模板上不同，how the contribution was “original” (not merely
replicating the work of others) and how they were of “major” significance.
相关阅读
北美申请绿卡(NIW)那些律师事务所比较好？J1 waiver 后 申绿卡，回国等问题打指纹1个月了没有动静请问485的邮寄地址如何找ACM期刊的录用率绿卡出美国是否仍然要上缴I94卡？140审批严格程度要下降了吗？请教如何填I907表第二部分第三个问题我的EB1A经验Fingerprint notice 问题6月递交的case要等到12月10日才能Service Request。有没有人办个emergency ap？求祝福, FP notice 早点到EB2NIW 咨询一个律师如何证明NIW所需三个条件140批准通知485需要吗？求教一个屏幕截图的问题请教审稿的问题：revised 以后再审可以多算一次吗？湾区可以walk in 打指纹么，求理由！包子酬谢请问怎样能让媒体报道？