EB1a PP RFE后悲剧:'(，写详细情况恳求建议! (长)# Immigration - 落地生根
e*n
1 楼
今天收到律师通知说EB1a的RFE被拒了，太郁闷了，辛辛苦苦准备了大半年的材料，自
己感觉RFE还挺充分的，没想到被据。急问：
(1) 如果重新递交，我听说应该DIY e-file PP给TSC。是说TSC比NSC好过吗？我是被NSC据的。
(2) 我OPT今年8月就到期了，EB1a被拒会影响OPT延期申请吗？
(3) 我应该现在马上就重新申请，还是appeal，还是等一段时间再试？
背景：CS博后，PhD在专业前5大学拿的。
Original petition的情况：
Authorship：总共29 papers, 其中10 first-authored
Citation: RFE前只有86，RFE的时候涨到120。
Review: 6篇for 5 journals（本来觉得很弱，结果被承认了，RFE的时候涨到14）
因为没什么把握，当时请了一个朋友推荐的律师。觉得自己citation和review都很弱，
想再攒攒再交，打电话告诉律师说想等一段时间再交。没想到后来他忘得一干二净，PL
都没给我看一眼，就擅自在圣诞节前file了application。我是突然收到USCIS的通知才
知道。果然，很快收到了RFE。
收到RFE我才看了律师写的PL，郁闷死，除了claim老三项authorship, review,
contribution，还highlight了media report。我只有一两个小media report，都是报
道我们组的大project，只提到了我的名字而已，没想到律师会用来claim。
RFE内容：承认了authorship和review，不承认的：
(i) The petitioner has provided evidence of the beneficiary's receiving
awards as a student from XXX and XXX. However, this criterion has not been
met because these do not appear to be nationally or internationally
recognized...
Award虽然没有claim，但律师在PL里花了一个段来描述，被IO拿出来说。
(iii) The petitioner has provided evidence of news articles and online
publications about projects on which the beneficiary worked as one member of
a research team. However, this criterion has not been met because the
material published does not establish that the material was about the
beneficiary….
这个前面说了，我没想到律师拿来claim。
(v) The evidence has provided evidence of patent applications on which the
beneficiary was named as a co-inventor, opinion letters by experts in the
beneficiary's academic field, and articles establishing moderate citation of
the beneficiary's work. However, this criterion has not been because the
evidence submitted does not show the beneficiary's contributions are
considered to be of major significance in the field of endeavor…
看了PL，contribution确实没论述好，没有闪光点，只是摘用了一些推荐信里的话，然
后把citation啊review啊talk啊说了一通。果然不承认。
因为是PP，很快收到RFE，给了3个月时间。我当时看了很多版上的建议，认真准备了以
下RFE的材料：
首先，感谢IO承认了authorship和contribution，然后说在RFE里会主要论证为什么
contribution是of major significance。（我彻底没提media和award的事，因为知道
不可能论证，所以放弃。）
提供了以下材料证明major contribution：
(1) 一个start-up company的CEO写信证明他的公司正在implement我的co-invention。
(2) 两个大学教授写信证明他们lab用了我的co-invention做实验，夸了夸我的
research很重要很有用。
(3) 我PhD老板写信证明我的research helped getting several NSF grants, thus
generating jobs。
(4) 一篇别人的survey paper是基于我一篇paper里的framework写的（里面cite了我的
paper 8次）
(5) 一篇别人的master thesis用了我的research做实验（里面cite了我的paper 7次）
(6) 四篇别人的papers里有提到我的research重要性，比如“make a significant
step…", "paves way towards…"等
(7) 有2个教授上课讲了我的paper，算是用作course materials
然后，为了证明totality，我又补充了以下证据：
Publications相关
(1) 有一篇paper在Scorpus上在其topic里200多篇里排第3，所以是top 1%
(2) 另一篇paper在Scorpus上在其topic里160篇里排第7，所以是top 4.5%
(3) 拿了一个best paper award，总共有600+ submissions，最后只有3篇获奖，所以
是top 0.5%
(4) 有篇paper被提名过best paper award，总共有600+ submission，只有3篇被提名
，所以也是top 0.5%
(5) 几乎PhD每年都在本领域最好的会上发表了文章。
Citation相关：
(1) citation从一开始的86RFE后三个月内涨到120（33%），来自21个国家。
(2) 每年的citation增长很快，11年cite我的paper的文章数量是07年的10倍。
(3) citation-per-paper和citation总数都比一些top program faculty的average高，
这个是跟Chronicle of Higher Education的数据比（觉得比较奇怪，我的citation不
高，总数120，但确实里面列的faculty的数据更低，所以还是用了）。
Review相关：
(1) 为很多top journals审了稿，主要补充说明了很多journals的rank。RFE前后
review数量翻了倍(6->14)。
(2) 被一个会议邀请做TPC member，提供了TPC chair的信，里面说只有
internationally well-recognized的researchers才被邀请。
其它：
在top conferences做talk。最近有个小proposal申到了15K的funding，说明会继续在
该领域工作等。
本来以为这些材料还可以，没想到还是被拒。这里把USCIS response写出来，请大侠们
帮我分析分析，也希望对后人有帮助：
I. Part One: Analysis of Criteria[2]
- Evidence of (awards)
You submitted evidence of your receipt of awards from XXX and XXX. However,
you have not submitted evidence establishing the national or international
recognition of these awards….
这条当时就没claim的，只是律师在original petition里用了一段说我的award，没想
到总被抓小辫子。
- Evidence of (media coverage)
You submitted evidence of local news articles and online press releases
about projects on which the beneficiary worked as one member of the team.
However, you have not submitted evidence establishing that the material was
about the beneficiary….
律师一开始claim了这条，本来以为RFE里完全不提，意思就是说放弃这条，没想到还是
会被拿出来说。
- Evidence of (review)
This criterion has been met.
- Evidence of (authorship)
This criterion has been met.
- Evidence of (contribution) 最关键的没过
You submitted evidence in the form of opinion letters by experts in the
field. These letters establish the high esteem in which you are held by
several former colleagues and fellow researchers. You have also submitted
evidence of two patent applications, along with letters supporting the
application and licensing of your original contributions in the field.
However, the evidence does not demonstrate the major significance of your
original contributions.
The significance of the beneficiary's work must be demonstrated by
preexisting, independent and objective evidence. Letters of support alone
are not sufficient and though not without weight, cannot form the
cornerstone of a successful claim as an alien of extraordinary ability…
USCIS notes that the submitted letters primarily offer broad assertions of
the impact of your work without providing specific examples of how that work
has significantly advanced the field. （怎么才能算specific examples啊？）
You have also submitted examples of scholarly articles citing your work in
the field. The number of citations is reflective of your original findings
and that the field has taken some interest in your work. Again, however,
this record of moderate citation does not reflect that your work has been of
major significance in the field. （我跟top faculty做了对比，original
petition里应该还include了各个领域平均citation的比较说明CS一般都很低，看来还
是没用）
Furthermore, you failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating
that your articles have been unusually influential, such as articles that
specially credit your work with influencing or impacting the field. As such,
the evidence submitted does not meet this criterion. （RFE里交的那些长篇引
用我的看来都不算数）
II. Part Two: Final Merits of Determination
USCIS acknowledges that you have acted as a judge of the work of others in
the field. However, participation in peer review, by itself, is routine in
the field, and has limited value in demonstrating the reviewer's
extraordinary ability. USCIS also acknowledges opinion letters by experts in
the field that make vague claims of the impact of your work and offer
support for its limited application. However, these letters fail to
establish that the beneficiary's contributions have significantly or majorly
influenced the field. Finally, USCIS acknowledges your authorship of
scholarly articles and active participation in academic conferences in the
field. This work has been moderately cited by others in the field. However,
both your record of publications and citations fall far short of setting you
apart through a "career of acclaim work".
就这样被彻底打击得体无完肤。大家觉得我现在重新申请还有戏吗？有什么需要注意的
地方？真心需要大家的建议，提前多谢了！！！
己感觉RFE还挺充分的，没想到被据。急问：
(1) 如果重新递交，我听说应该DIY e-file PP给TSC。是说TSC比NSC好过吗？我是被NSC据的。
(2) 我OPT今年8月就到期了，EB1a被拒会影响OPT延期申请吗？
(3) 我应该现在马上就重新申请，还是appeal，还是等一段时间再试？
背景：CS博后，PhD在专业前5大学拿的。
Original petition的情况：
Authorship：总共29 papers, 其中10 first-authored
Citation: RFE前只有86，RFE的时候涨到120。
Review: 6篇for 5 journals（本来觉得很弱，结果被承认了，RFE的时候涨到14）
因为没什么把握，当时请了一个朋友推荐的律师。觉得自己citation和review都很弱，
想再攒攒再交，打电话告诉律师说想等一段时间再交。没想到后来他忘得一干二净，PL
都没给我看一眼，就擅自在圣诞节前file了application。我是突然收到USCIS的通知才
知道。果然，很快收到了RFE。
收到RFE我才看了律师写的PL，郁闷死，除了claim老三项authorship, review,
contribution，还highlight了media report。我只有一两个小media report，都是报
道我们组的大project，只提到了我的名字而已，没想到律师会用来claim。
RFE内容：承认了authorship和review，不承认的：
(i) The petitioner has provided evidence of the beneficiary's receiving
awards as a student from XXX and XXX. However, this criterion has not been
met because these do not appear to be nationally or internationally
recognized...
Award虽然没有claim，但律师在PL里花了一个段来描述，被IO拿出来说。
(iii) The petitioner has provided evidence of news articles and online
publications about projects on which the beneficiary worked as one member of
a research team. However, this criterion has not been met because the
material published does not establish that the material was about the
beneficiary….
这个前面说了，我没想到律师拿来claim。
(v) The evidence has provided evidence of patent applications on which the
beneficiary was named as a co-inventor, opinion letters by experts in the
beneficiary's academic field, and articles establishing moderate citation of
the beneficiary's work. However, this criterion has not been because the
evidence submitted does not show the beneficiary's contributions are
considered to be of major significance in the field of endeavor…
看了PL，contribution确实没论述好，没有闪光点，只是摘用了一些推荐信里的话，然
后把citation啊review啊talk啊说了一通。果然不承认。
因为是PP，很快收到RFE，给了3个月时间。我当时看了很多版上的建议，认真准备了以
下RFE的材料：
首先，感谢IO承认了authorship和contribution，然后说在RFE里会主要论证为什么
contribution是of major significance。（我彻底没提media和award的事，因为知道
不可能论证，所以放弃。）
提供了以下材料证明major contribution：
(1) 一个start-up company的CEO写信证明他的公司正在implement我的co-invention。
(2) 两个大学教授写信证明他们lab用了我的co-invention做实验，夸了夸我的
research很重要很有用。
(3) 我PhD老板写信证明我的research helped getting several NSF grants, thus
generating jobs。
(4) 一篇别人的survey paper是基于我一篇paper里的framework写的（里面cite了我的
paper 8次）
(5) 一篇别人的master thesis用了我的research做实验（里面cite了我的paper 7次）
(6) 四篇别人的papers里有提到我的research重要性，比如“make a significant
step…", "paves way towards…"等
(7) 有2个教授上课讲了我的paper，算是用作course materials
然后，为了证明totality，我又补充了以下证据：
Publications相关
(1) 有一篇paper在Scorpus上在其topic里200多篇里排第3，所以是top 1%
(2) 另一篇paper在Scorpus上在其topic里160篇里排第7，所以是top 4.5%
(3) 拿了一个best paper award，总共有600+ submissions，最后只有3篇获奖，所以
是top 0.5%
(4) 有篇paper被提名过best paper award，总共有600+ submission，只有3篇被提名
，所以也是top 0.5%
(5) 几乎PhD每年都在本领域最好的会上发表了文章。
Citation相关：
(1) citation从一开始的86RFE后三个月内涨到120（33%），来自21个国家。
(2) 每年的citation增长很快，11年cite我的paper的文章数量是07年的10倍。
(3) citation-per-paper和citation总数都比一些top program faculty的average高，
这个是跟Chronicle of Higher Education的数据比（觉得比较奇怪，我的citation不
高，总数120，但确实里面列的faculty的数据更低，所以还是用了）。
Review相关：
(1) 为很多top journals审了稿，主要补充说明了很多journals的rank。RFE前后
review数量翻了倍(6->14)。
(2) 被一个会议邀请做TPC member，提供了TPC chair的信，里面说只有
internationally well-recognized的researchers才被邀请。
其它：
在top conferences做talk。最近有个小proposal申到了15K的funding，说明会继续在
该领域工作等。
本来以为这些材料还可以，没想到还是被拒。这里把USCIS response写出来，请大侠们
帮我分析分析，也希望对后人有帮助：
I. Part One: Analysis of Criteria[2]
- Evidence of (awards)
You submitted evidence of your receipt of awards from XXX and XXX. However,
you have not submitted evidence establishing the national or international
recognition of these awards….
这条当时就没claim的，只是律师在original petition里用了一段说我的award，没想
到总被抓小辫子。
- Evidence of (media coverage)
You submitted evidence of local news articles and online press releases
about projects on which the beneficiary worked as one member of the team.
However, you have not submitted evidence establishing that the material was
about the beneficiary….
律师一开始claim了这条，本来以为RFE里完全不提，意思就是说放弃这条，没想到还是
会被拿出来说。
- Evidence of (review)
This criterion has been met.
- Evidence of (authorship)
This criterion has been met.
- Evidence of (contribution) 最关键的没过
You submitted evidence in the form of opinion letters by experts in the
field. These letters establish the high esteem in which you are held by
several former colleagues and fellow researchers. You have also submitted
evidence of two patent applications, along with letters supporting the
application and licensing of your original contributions in the field.
However, the evidence does not demonstrate the major significance of your
original contributions.
The significance of the beneficiary's work must be demonstrated by
preexisting, independent and objective evidence. Letters of support alone
are not sufficient and though not without weight, cannot form the
cornerstone of a successful claim as an alien of extraordinary ability…
USCIS notes that the submitted letters primarily offer broad assertions of
the impact of your work without providing specific examples of how that work
has significantly advanced the field. （怎么才能算specific examples啊？）
You have also submitted examples of scholarly articles citing your work in
the field. The number of citations is reflective of your original findings
and that the field has taken some interest in your work. Again, however,
this record of moderate citation does not reflect that your work has been of
major significance in the field. （我跟top faculty做了对比，original
petition里应该还include了各个领域平均citation的比较说明CS一般都很低，看来还
是没用）
Furthermore, you failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating
that your articles have been unusually influential, such as articles that
specially credit your work with influencing or impacting the field. As such,
the evidence submitted does not meet this criterion. （RFE里交的那些长篇引
用我的看来都不算数）
II. Part Two: Final Merits of Determination
USCIS acknowledges that you have acted as a judge of the work of others in
the field. However, participation in peer review, by itself, is routine in
the field, and has limited value in demonstrating the reviewer's
extraordinary ability. USCIS also acknowledges opinion letters by experts in
the field that make vague claims of the impact of your work and offer
support for its limited application. However, these letters fail to
establish that the beneficiary's contributions have significantly or majorly
influenced the field. Finally, USCIS acknowledges your authorship of
scholarly articles and active participation in academic conferences in the
field. This work has been moderately cited by others in the field. However,
both your record of publications and citations fall far short of setting you
apart through a "career of acclaim work".
就这样被彻底打击得体无完肤。大家觉得我现在重新申请还有戏吗？有什么需要注意的
地方？真心需要大家的建议，提前多谢了！！！
