NSC 0603 RFE， 求建议# Immigration - 落地生根
c*t
1 楼
背景：
弱case。国内生物医学类博士，在美排名20左右的大学医学院做postdoc，
文章：17 （7 英文，10 中文）
引用：102
审稿：24
专利：1项，已授权并在原工作的公司得到应用
考虑到case比较弱，请律师也不一定有多大帮助，决定自己弄。
timeline
11/22 e－file
12/04 pp sent out
12/10 PP clock started
12/13 PP clock stopped, RFE
收到mail一看，居然是大名鼎鼎的杀手0603.
claim了老三样，承认了authorship和judge， 不承认contribution。
感觉这个IO根本不看推荐信和petition letter。我的文章被牛人在review中大段引用
，被书引用，有杂志基于我发表的文章邀请我写热点介绍的文章，我请这些人写了独立
推荐信。那个专利请原单位的副总写了推荐信，说明专利如何得到应用。
考古了一下版上对这个IO RFE的应答，好像不太乐观啊，是不是与其绞尽脑汁与他纠缠
，不如 withdraw 重新递，碰碰运气更靠谱？求过来人建议。
下面是RFE的具体内容。
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has Submitted reference letter; a citation record, and
evidence of conference participation, and a patent.
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. Reference letters solicited in
support of an immigration petition are given less weight than preexisting,
independent evidence that one would expect of an individual who has made
original contributions of major significance in the field of endeavor.
Reference letters without additional, specific and independent evidence
showing that the beneficiary 's work has been unusually influential, widely
1 applied throughout his field,. or has otherwise to the level of
contributions of major significance, are not enough to persuade us that the
beneficiary meets this criterion. Merely submitting documentation
reflecting that the beneficiary's work has been cited by others in their
published articles and the beneficiary has participated in conferences is
insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary
evidence reflecting that the beneficiary's work has been of major
significance in the field. The petitioner has submitted evidence that the
beneficiary is listed as the inventor on one patent, but the only evidence
that was submitted to show that the patent was being utilized is a
certification for dated before the patent application. The petitioner has
not established the impact or influence of the beneficiary's work. 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 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.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was "original" (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of "major" significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
弱case。国内生物医学类博士，在美排名20左右的大学医学院做postdoc，
文章：17 （7 英文，10 中文）
引用：102
审稿：24
专利：1项，已授权并在原工作的公司得到应用
考虑到case比较弱，请律师也不一定有多大帮助，决定自己弄。
timeline
11/22 e－file
12/04 pp sent out
12/10 PP clock started
12/13 PP clock stopped, RFE
收到mail一看，居然是大名鼎鼎的杀手0603.
claim了老三样，承认了authorship和judge， 不承认contribution。
感觉这个IO根本不看推荐信和petition letter。我的文章被牛人在review中大段引用
，被书引用，有杂志基于我发表的文章邀请我写热点介绍的文章，我请这些人写了独立
推荐信。那个专利请原单位的副总写了推荐信，说明专利如何得到应用。
考古了一下版上对这个IO RFE的应答，好像不太乐观啊，是不是与其绞尽脑汁与他纠缠
，不如 withdraw 重新递，碰碰运气更靠谱？求过来人建议。
下面是RFE的具体内容。
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has Submitted reference letter; a citation record, and
evidence of conference participation, and a patent.
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. Reference letters solicited in
support of an immigration petition are given less weight than preexisting,
independent evidence that one would expect of an individual who has made
original contributions of major significance in the field of endeavor.
Reference letters without additional, specific and independent evidence
showing that the beneficiary 's work has been unusually influential, widely
1 applied throughout his field,. or has otherwise to the level of
contributions of major significance, are not enough to persuade us that the
beneficiary meets this criterion. Merely submitting documentation
reflecting that the beneficiary's work has been cited by others in their
published articles and the beneficiary has participated in conferences is
insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary
evidence reflecting that the beneficiary's work has been of major
significance in the field. The petitioner has submitted evidence that the
beneficiary is listed as the inventor on one patent, but the only evidence
that was submitted to show that the patent was being utilized is a
certification for dated before the patent application. The petitioner has
not established the impact or influence of the beneficiary's work. 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 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.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was "original" (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of "major" significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
