天 好可怕# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
c*u
1 楼
我看了本版网友abricott列出的一些AAO判例，又其他人讨论，觉得这些判例中“
impacted the field as a whole”是最难论证的。
但是AAO判例就一定可靠吗？比如JAN262015_03B2203这篇：
Evidence of Mr. X's appreciation of the
petitioner's work is insufficient to show the impact of the petitioner's
work in the field. This evidence shows that certain people, including Mr. X
have found value and interest in the petitioner's work. This, however, is
insufficient to show a wider impact of the petitioner's work in the field as
whole consistent with a contribution of major significance.
单读这一段觉得说的很有道理，可是如果读一下原文，发现USCIS第一个指出的错误是
其实这位申请人的职业是waiter，而他试图要impact的领域是field of creativity,
which is a contrived field of expertise.我总是感觉USCIS对他的评判虽然很严肃
，但是都是基于他的职业与petition的field太不靠谱了，所以USCIS才把这一点写在了
最前面。
如此说来，这个case中关于“impacted the field as a whole”的可靠性是不是就打
折扣了呢？当然我并不是要抬杠子反驳什么，我仍然觉得证明“impacted the field
as a whole”是正确的。我只是觉得大家不要被一些case中的严厉的论断所误导，
这些严厉的论断可能是因为申请人太不靠谱了，所以需要用严厉的论断做definitely
的reject。
impacted the field as a whole”是最难论证的。
但是AAO判例就一定可靠吗？比如JAN262015_03B2203这篇：
Evidence of Mr. X's appreciation of the
petitioner's work is insufficient to show the impact of the petitioner's
work in the field. This evidence shows that certain people, including Mr. X
have found value and interest in the petitioner's work. This, however, is
insufficient to show a wider impact of the petitioner's work in the field as
whole consistent with a contribution of major significance.
单读这一段觉得说的很有道理，可是如果读一下原文，发现USCIS第一个指出的错误是
其实这位申请人的职业是waiter，而他试图要impact的领域是field of creativity,
which is a contrived field of expertise.我总是感觉USCIS对他的评判虽然很严肃
，但是都是基于他的职业与petition的field太不靠谱了，所以USCIS才把这一点写在了
最前面。
如此说来，这个case中关于“impacted the field as a whole”的可靠性是不是就打
折扣了呢？当然我并不是要抬杠子反驳什么，我仍然觉得证明“impacted the field
as a whole”是正确的。我只是觉得大家不要被一些case中的严厉的论断所误导，
这些严厉的论断可能是因为申请人太不靠谱了，所以需要用严厉的论断做definitely
的reject。
