领导干部们要经常咬耳扯袖、红脸出汗 (转载)# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
j*n
1 楼
大家好，
过去30天看见好多EB1B的战友被0002和0214 NOID，我也预感不好，今天公司律师告诉
我收到NOID(其实已经过去好几天了），算了下只有20天出头的时间准备材料。
申请的背景如下：
1. PhD，业内大公司R&D Engineer，分析化学背景，偏冷的仪器领域。
2. 一共7篇journal，其中5篇一作。3篇1作和另外2篇不是一作发表在Analytical
Chemistry上（领域top期刊）。
3. 推荐信7封，一封来自导师，一封合作教授，一封公司研发部VP，其他4封是
independent，分别来自美国，英国（2封），瑞典。
4. 提交的时候引用77个，现在89个。
5. 会议oral presentation 4次，poster 1次。
申请的情况：
公司一直用Fragomen的律师，申请过程中感觉水平不行，我自己早期把关了RL（现在看
来是没写好没突出重点）和后期自己按版上的完全重写了PL（自己感觉写的还可以，感
觉IO没看）。
律师的PL claim了4项，只有7页。我后来删减到了3项，扩孔到15页，涵盖很多大家常
用的方式。
1. Authorship （文章里面强调发表的期刊牛，引用的期刊牛，引用的国际分布广）
2. Contribution （强调了3方面的贡献，引用推荐信的句子。强调了对公司产品的贡
献，
3. Published Material written by others(后悔没拿掉啊！！！律师一开始是指引用
和被一本业内的书摘录了1页，后来我加了公司新产品和新record的新闻报道，但是没
我名字，通过VP的推荐信肯定我的主要贡献）
NOID 情况：
第一步0214承认了Authorship和Contribution，不承认Published Material。
第二部0214和最近很多回信很相似，寻求preexisting, independent, and objective
evidence. 指出发文章是应该的，但是独立引用没法和领域top researcher比。
因为时间紧急，明天要和律师电话会议讨论接下去的策略，我想请大家帮我出出主意，
我该怎么办，我现在理一下一些可能性，我的选择真的不多了，因为这个仪器领域半数
以上的大牛已经为我写了推荐信，而且我们领域小，独立引用本来就难。
1. 放弃claim media，把所有的都引到contribution里面来加强贡献。（回复可以
忽略IO不承认的那条吗？）
2. 通过这个冷门分析仪器的VP级别的口，强调这个仪器在全世界分布并不广泛，
是冷门领域。我的文章发表的期刊号，我的引用已经遍布绝大多数国家，而且数目对本
领域来说已经算top。（把PL陈述的通过独立推荐人的口说出来）
3. 把仪器的世界分布和我的引用分布都用Google Map做成油灯图在回复中呼应。
4. 找公司VP帮忙找政府研究结构的人写推荐信，表述自从我加入公司后，公司产
品突飞猛进，对美国环境和经济都有很大贡献。
5. 争取再挖一个引用过我文章的作者，写独立推荐信。
6. 公司有个pending专利，将要用到下一代产品上，不知道公司肯不肯给材料。
还有什么办法？大家帮帮忙，为了等引用这绿卡拖了1年半了，最后居然这个结果。
谢谢
0214 IO的回复如下
Criteria Analysis
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
• Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic field
• Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (
in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for the following criterion:
• Published material in professional publications written by others
about the alien's work in the academic field. Such material shall include
the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation
You offer citations of the alien's work as evidence for this criterion, but
USCIS does not recognize citations as evidence for this criterion, because
the alien's work must be the focus of published material, not simply
citations of his work. Thus, such documentation has no probative value for
meeting this criterion.
If the petitioner believes that the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USCIS has determined that the petitioner has failed
to establish eligibility under, or any additional regulatory criteria, the
petitioner should submit clarifying evidence, or submit additional evidence
in response to this portion of the notice of intent to deny.
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary
has met at least 2 of the 6 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make a final merits determination of
whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has
demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise
required for the E12 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E12 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary's being recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the
petition.
You submitted letters of support written by experts to establish the alien's
original research contributions to the academic field. Drs. XXX and XXX are
the alien's former professors and collaborators and will therefore not be
treated as independent experts; Dr. XXX finds the alien to be "a preeminent
researcher in field of XXX," and Dr. XXX is "confident that [the alien's]
research talents will allow him to continue making significant contributions
to the international solar community."Yet the alien's scientific or
scholarly research contributions to the academic field must be demonstrated
by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence. USCIS may in its
discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses, but USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final
determination of the alien's eligibility. See Matter of Caron International,
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988).
The record shows that the alien has published 7 articles with scholarly
journals and presented his work at conferences in his field. However, a
researcher's publishing is not as reliable a gauge in determining influence
on the academic field as frequent, independent citations of his work. Indeed
, USCIS considers the number of independent citations an objective, reliable
measurement in determining the alien's original contributions to the
academic field. Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but
it is difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence if
there is little or no evidence that other researchers have relied on the
alien's findings.
And so, upon examining the alien's publications and citatory history, USCIS
finds that his body of work has influenced the academic field, but not
significantly. To be sure, the number of independent citations of the alien'
s work, when compared with that of the top researchers in the field,
suggests neither significant influence nor that the alien is recognized as
an outstanding researcher.
Although the evidence of record shows that the alien meets the plain
language of 2 regulatory criteria, he is not very strong in either; moreover
, the evidence does not establish that the alien's original research
contributes significantly to the field as a whole. You have proven that the
alien is a promising and respected researcher who has secured some degree of
national and international exposure for his work, but the record stops
short of elevating him to the level of one who is recognized internationally
as outstanding in the academic field.
过去30天看见好多EB1B的战友被0002和0214 NOID，我也预感不好，今天公司律师告诉
我收到NOID(其实已经过去好几天了），算了下只有20天出头的时间准备材料。
申请的背景如下：
1. PhD，业内大公司R&D Engineer，分析化学背景，偏冷的仪器领域。
2. 一共7篇journal，其中5篇一作。3篇1作和另外2篇不是一作发表在Analytical
Chemistry上（领域top期刊）。
3. 推荐信7封，一封来自导师，一封合作教授，一封公司研发部VP，其他4封是
independent，分别来自美国，英国（2封），瑞典。
4. 提交的时候引用77个，现在89个。
5. 会议oral presentation 4次，poster 1次。
申请的情况：
公司一直用Fragomen的律师，申请过程中感觉水平不行，我自己早期把关了RL（现在看
来是没写好没突出重点）和后期自己按版上的完全重写了PL（自己感觉写的还可以，感
觉IO没看）。
律师的PL claim了4项，只有7页。我后来删减到了3项，扩孔到15页，涵盖很多大家常
用的方式。
1. Authorship （文章里面强调发表的期刊牛，引用的期刊牛，引用的国际分布广）
2. Contribution （强调了3方面的贡献，引用推荐信的句子。强调了对公司产品的贡
献，
3. Published Material written by others(后悔没拿掉啊！！！律师一开始是指引用
和被一本业内的书摘录了1页，后来我加了公司新产品和新record的新闻报道，但是没
我名字，通过VP的推荐信肯定我的主要贡献）
NOID 情况：
第一步0214承认了Authorship和Contribution，不承认Published Material。
第二部0214和最近很多回信很相似，寻求preexisting, independent, and objective
evidence. 指出发文章是应该的，但是独立引用没法和领域top researcher比。
因为时间紧急，明天要和律师电话会议讨论接下去的策略，我想请大家帮我出出主意，
我该怎么办，我现在理一下一些可能性，我的选择真的不多了，因为这个仪器领域半数
以上的大牛已经为我写了推荐信，而且我们领域小，独立引用本来就难。
1. 放弃claim media，把所有的都引到contribution里面来加强贡献。（回复可以
忽略IO不承认的那条吗？）
2. 通过这个冷门分析仪器的VP级别的口，强调这个仪器在全世界分布并不广泛，
是冷门领域。我的文章发表的期刊号，我的引用已经遍布绝大多数国家，而且数目对本
领域来说已经算top。（把PL陈述的通过独立推荐人的口说出来）
3. 把仪器的世界分布和我的引用分布都用Google Map做成油灯图在回复中呼应。
4. 找公司VP帮忙找政府研究结构的人写推荐信，表述自从我加入公司后，公司产
品突飞猛进，对美国环境和经济都有很大贡献。
5. 争取再挖一个引用过我文章的作者，写独立推荐信。
6. 公司有个pending专利，将要用到下一代产品上，不知道公司肯不肯给材料。
还有什么办法？大家帮帮忙，为了等引用这绿卡拖了1年半了，最后居然这个结果。
谢谢
0214 IO的回复如下
Criteria Analysis
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
• Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic field
• Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (
in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for the following criterion:
• Published material in professional publications written by others
about the alien's work in the academic field. Such material shall include
the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation
You offer citations of the alien's work as evidence for this criterion, but
USCIS does not recognize citations as evidence for this criterion, because
the alien's work must be the focus of published material, not simply
citations of his work. Thus, such documentation has no probative value for
meeting this criterion.
If the petitioner believes that the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USCIS has determined that the petitioner has failed
to establish eligibility under, or any additional regulatory criteria, the
petitioner should submit clarifying evidence, or submit additional evidence
in response to this portion of the notice of intent to deny.
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary
has met at least 2 of the 6 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make a final merits determination of
whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has
demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise
required for the E12 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E12 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary's being recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the
petition.
You submitted letters of support written by experts to establish the alien's
original research contributions to the academic field. Drs. XXX and XXX are
the alien's former professors and collaborators and will therefore not be
treated as independent experts; Dr. XXX finds the alien to be "a preeminent
researcher in field of XXX," and Dr. XXX is "confident that [the alien's]
research talents will allow him to continue making significant contributions
to the international solar community."Yet the alien's scientific or
scholarly research contributions to the academic field must be demonstrated
by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence. USCIS may in its
discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses, but USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final
determination of the alien's eligibility. See Matter of Caron International,
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988).
The record shows that the alien has published 7 articles with scholarly
journals and presented his work at conferences in his field. However, a
researcher's publishing is not as reliable a gauge in determining influence
on the academic field as frequent, independent citations of his work. Indeed
, USCIS considers the number of independent citations an objective, reliable
measurement in determining the alien's original contributions to the
academic field. Publishing alone may serve as evidence of originality, but
it is difficult to determine a published work's importance or influence if
there is little or no evidence that other researchers have relied on the
alien's findings.
And so, upon examining the alien's publications and citatory history, USCIS
finds that his body of work has influenced the academic field, but not
significantly. To be sure, the number of independent citations of the alien'
s work, when compared with that of the top researchers in the field,
suggests neither significant influence nor that the alien is recognized as
an outstanding researcher.
Although the evidence of record shows that the alien meets the plain
language of 2 regulatory criteria, he is not very strong in either; moreover
, the evidence does not establish that the alien's original research
contributes significantly to the field as a whole. You have proven that the
alien is a promising and respected researcher who has secured some degree of
national and international exposure for his work, but the record stops
short of elevating him to the level of one who is recognized internationally
as outstanding in the academic field.
