【急】真诚求助 EB1B pp NOID 请教该如何回复# Immigration - 落地生根
p*y
1 楼
case情况
文章 10
引用 50 他引 35
patent 1
审稿 20
推荐信 6
提交10天之后收到noid
The record shows that the beneficiary served as a reviewer in the academic
field, but the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary's
participation in the widespread peer-review process (a routine process in
the field relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers.
Therefore, while the submitted evidence meets the plain language of this
criterion, it does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field.
这个意思是说审稿是一个routine的事情 我有一封推荐信是一个邀请我做program
committee的教授 说到了只会邀请outstanding researcher 是不是需要再找推荐信来
strengthen这一部分呢？
You submitted letters of opinion, but they do not establish that the
beneficiary's research has contributed significantly to the academic field.
Moreover, letters alone would be insufficient to establish the beneficiary's
original scientific or scholarly research contributions, which must be
demonstrated by independent, objective evidence.
推荐信找了6封 2封非独立 4封独立 有4封都来自美国 引用我文章的只找到1个 其他人
要么不回 要么文章只有introduction稍微提到了我的paper 所以也没有去尝试
打算这次再重新挖一下亮点 找推荐信真的真的真的太难了 之前找的都已经答应了 推
荐信写好了 又反悔的 这次30天要回应 真的好着急 好焦虑
The record shows that the beneficiary published papers in the academic field
. But it is worthwhile to note that publications are not as reliable a
measurement in determining a researcher's influence on the academic field as
frequent, independent citations of his work. Indeed, USCIS considers the
number of independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in
determining the beneficiary's original research contributions to the
academic fields.
这段其实心里特别没底 不知道怎么回 citation很低 确实是弱 没办法 这里的意思是
只有citation才能作为objective guage？ 请问大家应该如何回复呢？
非常感谢大家花时间看 有类似情况或者建议的朋友 不胜感激！
文章 10
引用 50 他引 35
patent 1
审稿 20
推荐信 6
提交10天之后收到noid
The record shows that the beneficiary served as a reviewer in the academic
field, but the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary's
participation in the widespread peer-review process (a routine process in
the field relying on many scientists) exceeds that of other researchers.
Therefore, while the submitted evidence meets the plain language of this
criterion, it does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field.
这个意思是说审稿是一个routine的事情 我有一封推荐信是一个邀请我做program
committee的教授 说到了只会邀请outstanding researcher 是不是需要再找推荐信来
strengthen这一部分呢？
You submitted letters of opinion, but they do not establish that the
beneficiary's research has contributed significantly to the academic field.
Moreover, letters alone would be insufficient to establish the beneficiary's
original scientific or scholarly research contributions, which must be
demonstrated by independent, objective evidence.
推荐信找了6封 2封非独立 4封独立 有4封都来自美国 引用我文章的只找到1个 其他人
要么不回 要么文章只有introduction稍微提到了我的paper 所以也没有去尝试
打算这次再重新挖一下亮点 找推荐信真的真的真的太难了 之前找的都已经答应了 推
荐信写好了 又反悔的 这次30天要回应 真的好着急 好焦虑
The record shows that the beneficiary published papers in the academic field
. But it is worthwhile to note that publications are not as reliable a
measurement in determining a researcher's influence on the academic field as
frequent, independent citations of his work. Indeed, USCIS considers the
number of independent citations to be an objective, reliable gauge in
determining the beneficiary's original research contributions to the
academic fields.
这段其实心里特别没底 不知道怎么回 citation很低 确实是弱 没办法 这里的意思是
只有citation才能作为objective guage？ 请问大家应该如何回复呢？
非常感谢大家花时间看 有类似情况或者建议的朋友 不胜感激！
