EB1A I140 被Rfe了,求给意见!谢!# Immigration - 落地生根
h*6
1 楼
生物化学方向,3篇一作,1篇4作,引用94次,推荐信8篇(1封collaborator, 7封独
立,其中有3封是引用文章的教授,一封是院士,一封是Harvard教授),没奖没报道。
直接申请的EBIA I140+pp,Nebraska, OI 0299。
一周后收到rfe:承认审稿和authorship,但是需要补充original and major
significance in the field:
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
In support of this criterion, you have submitted letters of reference from
various experts in your field. You have also submitted evidence that
establishes that your work has been cited 94 times.
This evidence is not sufficient because while the authors of your letters of
reference do indicate that you are a very talented research scientist, they
do not describe the major significance of your contribution. In addition,
your citations history indicates a moderate level of interest in your work,
but is not, in and of itself, dispositive of the issue of major significance.
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 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:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o 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 important of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.
立,其中有3封是引用文章的教授,一封是院士,一封是Harvard教授),没奖没报道。
直接申请的EBIA I140+pp,Nebraska, OI 0299。
一周后收到rfe:承认审稿和authorship,但是需要补充original and major
significance in the field:
Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
In support of this criterion, you have submitted letters of reference from
various experts in your field. You have also submitted evidence that
establishes that your work has been cited 94 times.
This evidence is not sufficient because while the authors of your letters of
reference do indicate that you are a very talented research scientist, they
do not describe the major significance of your contribution. In addition,
your citations history indicates a moderate level of interest in your work,
but is not, in and of itself, dispositive of the issue of major significance.
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 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:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o 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 important of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient.