奥巴马家人北京家宴菜单曝光 (转载)# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
e*l
1 楼
上个星期 EB1A 直接 PP 到 NSC，今天收到 来自 0002 的模板式 NOID。大伙能不能帮
我看看，该如何回复。同时也跟大家求个祝福！ 谢谢了。
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
老三样
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed " sustained"
national acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may have
achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a
comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and,
* Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is out of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
The evidence indicates the petitioner has conducted peer reviews. With
regards to the petitioner's work as a peer reviewer, the fact that respected
scientific journals and organizations are peer-reviewed and receive
hundreds of manuscripts for potential publication that must be peer-reviewed
cannot ignored. It is a logical conclusion that scientific journals must
rely on many scientists to review these manuscripts, making this a routine
activity for scientists. Therefore, peer-review is not, by itself,
indicative of, or consistent with being in the very top of a field or
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the
petitioner is in the very top of the field or has sustained national or
international acclaim.
我的背景是，生物博后五年，文章 15 （一作 6），引用 >700 (59 个国家）， 审稿
19 次 。
NOID 里只对我的审稿做了评价，而对于引用和 Contribution 都没有评价。接下来我
应该是专攻审稿部分，跟杂志主编要推荐信。还是同时还要强调我的引用，文章等等达
到了 small percentage 的标准吗？ 是否要证明从三个方面都要达到 small
percentage 的要求？
我看看，该如何回复。同时也跟大家求个祝福！ 谢谢了。
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
老三样
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed " sustained"
national acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may have
achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a
comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and,
* Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is out of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
The evidence indicates the petitioner has conducted peer reviews. With
regards to the petitioner's work as a peer reviewer, the fact that respected
scientific journals and organizations are peer-reviewed and receive
hundreds of manuscripts for potential publication that must be peer-reviewed
cannot ignored. It is a logical conclusion that scientific journals must
rely on many scientists to review these manuscripts, making this a routine
activity for scientists. Therefore, peer-review is not, by itself,
indicative of, or consistent with being in the very top of a field or
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the
petitioner is in the very top of the field or has sustained national or
international acclaim.
我的背景是，生物博后五年，文章 15 （一作 6），引用 >700 (59 个国家）， 审稿
19 次 。
NOID 里只对我的审稿做了评价，而对于引用和 Contribution 都没有评价。接下来我
应该是专攻审稿部分，跟杂志主编要推荐信。还是同时还要强调我的引用，文章等等达
到了 small percentage 的标准吗？ 是否要证明从三个方面都要达到 small
percentage 的要求？
