有人买过这个top entry cat litter box吗？# pets - 心有所宠
k*e
1 楼
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:07:59 2012, 美东) 提到:
背景： Nov, 15, 2011 non-pp I140 EB1A, Jun 27 NOID, 求版内的xdjm帮忙看看还有
救吗？
以下是NOID的内容：（略去套话）
二步法： 承认了老三样,
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for the following criteria:
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has submitted evidence that he has peer-reviewed two articles
for Environmental Science & Technologt, two articles for International
Journal of Nanomedicine, one article for Biomacromolecules,
and one article for Chemical Science. Participating in the judging of the
work of others in the same or allied field of specialization, regardless of
the circumstances, satisfies the regulatory criteria in part one.
However, the petitioner has not shown how his review of eight articles is
indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very
top of the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or
international acclaim. For example, the record does not show that the
beneficiary:
Served as an expert judge, panelist, or reviewer, for the selection of
recognized prizes and/or memberships in the beneficiary's same or allied
field;
Served in an editorial position(s) for recognized joumals in the
hbeneficiary's same or an allied field;
or
Reviewed a large number of articles for distinguished journals, magazines,
or editorials in the beneficiary's same or allied field.
Additionally, the petitioner submitted evidence of published material in
professional or trade publications or, in major rnedia publications about an
article that he co-wrote. Science Daily published an article regardirrg the
beneficiary's work entitled, which appeared in Plant Physiology. This
satisfies the regulatory criteria of part one. It is noted that the same
article also appeared in Nano Werk and Nano techwire.com, but it has not
been shown that these are major media publications. The article does not
mention the beneficiary by name or his contribution to the project. His name
only appears in the Jountal Reference section. Therefore, the petitioner
has failed to show how the publication of this article indicates that he is
one of that small percentage who has risen to the top of the field of
biophysics and neuroscience and that he is enjoying sustained national or
international acclaim.
The petitioner also submitted evidence that he co-authored four scholarly
articles that were published in professional or major trade publications.
This satisfies the regulatory criteria in part one. However, the petitioner
has failed to show how these four publications are indicative of someone who
has risen to the very top of their field. The petitioner has not shown that
he has consistently published scholarly articles in journals
with the highest impact factors within the field. He has also failed to show
that these articles have advanced the field or set him apart from others in
his field. While it has been shown that one of the beneficiary's
articles, which appeared in PNAS, has been widely cited, a footnote to the
article states that the beneficiary only helped perfom research for the
article. The footnote also states that the other co-authors designed the
research, contributed new reagents/ analytical tools, analyzed the data and
wrote the paper. Thus, the evidence shows that the beneficiary worked on the
project, but was not one of the main contributors to the
article.
Finally, the petitioner submitted testimonial letters from six highly
regarded experts in the field of biophysics and neuroscience. These letters
explained the beneficiary's original contributions to the field, but they
did not show how these contributions were of "major significance" to the
field. For example, most of the letters discuss tlre beneficiary's afticle
that appeared in PNAS. However, as mentioned above, the evidence shows that
he was not one of the main contributors to that article. The
testimonial letters also indicate that the beneficiary's work has advanced
the knowledge in his field of study, and that his work could have an impact
on the field in the future. the record slrows that the beneficiary is a
promising young scientist. However, it has not been shown that at the time
of the filing of the petition, his work has provoked widespread public
commentary or that it has been implemented by others in the field. Also, the
letters do not illustrate how the beneficiary's work is indicative of one
that is of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their
field and is enjoying sustained national or intemational acclaim.
As discussed. USCIS has evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish that the beneficiary is an individual of
extraordinary ability in accordance with 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the INA.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lcan (上网是一种病；灌水更是病入膏肓) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:19:44 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
netoflong (ilovedog) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:23:57 2012, 美东) 提到:
huge bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:29:12 2012, 美东) 提到:
can you introduce your background a little bit? It seems like you have demo
one PNAS paper OF which you are not the first author. This paper has been
slapped by this IO again and again. How many papers especially first author
papers do you
have?
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cruisehot (best lucky) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:50:13 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:50:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
排名前5的学校PHD，现是国家实验室 postdoc, 6篇paper(包括2篇手稿），15个会议以
及talk的abstracts，8篇review，120多个引用
递交140的时候没有一作已发表的文章，但有两篇一作的手稿，现在有一篇已经发表在
analytical chemistry，
demo
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:57:43 2012, 美东) 提到:
Frankly speaking, it seems like your case is not that optimistic. It will be
better that you can wait for some more first author papers coming out and
gathering the citation.
Basically without first author paper, it is quite hard to convince that it
is "You" not others to make the signifcant contribution. The IO digged into
the footnote and found the evidence that quite difficult to defense. With
that fact, the chance to argue by using traditional strategy, e.g. asking
supervisor or co-author to write you a letter in your favor, may not be
helpful too much.
One thing that I can think about is that you really can have other evidence
rather than this paper to demonstrate your contribution, e.g. your
commercialized patents, your TPC service, etc.
Bless and please update us with your status.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:01:35 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢大蜜的回复，唉，这个专业出paper太难了
be
into
evidence
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:06:26 2012, 美东) 提到:
大蜜所言极是，问题确实出在第一作者的问题上。一般的case都有两篇第一作者充数，
然后大势宣扬非一作的重点文章。但这个案例的问题是，递交时候没有一篇一作，总体
发表文章数目又是勉强的1A数目，所以很难用数目来掩盖住。一旦被IO发现数目少，没
一作，这就麻烦了。
想问一下，重点突出的贡献那篇是第几作，如果是2作，用传统的通讯和一作写信说明
的方法也许还有希望。附加其他贡献。
be
into
evidence
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:11:22 2012, 美东) 提到:
恩，是二作，可以把最新发表的一作一起加上去吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:29:01 2012, 美东) 提到:
当然可以把一作加上，虽然没有引用，如果和你那篇重点文章有关联性就更好，再次证
明你对这个工作的贡献是突出的，以至于持续的工作中又产生了新的文章，并且是一作
。同时通过论述一作中的具体工作更加验证你那篇重点文章中的贡献。但千万不要重点
强调一作，让IO抓没引用的辫子，谈一作的时候，基本是在谈具体的和前面文章关联的
贡献，把贡献讲的很具体，然后轻描淡写的谈一下被peer-review并且接受发表。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:37:29 2012, 美东) 提到:
好的，多谢！那关于提到推荐人方面的质疑，应该如何回复呢？
The testimonial letters also indicate that the beneficiary's work has
advanced the knowledge in his field of study, and that his work could have
an impact on the field in the future. the record slrows that the beneficiary
is a promising young scientist. However, it has not been shown that at the
time of the filing of the petition, his work has provoked widespread public
commentary or that it has been implemented by others in the field. Also, the
letters do not illustrate how the beneficiary's work is indicative of one
that is of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their
field and is enjoying sustained national or intemational acclaim.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:47:10 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个问题要问大蜜或者美妈（版5）
beneficiary
the
public
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:50:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢！弱弱地问一下，版5是什么意思啊？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:56:46 2012, 美东) 提到:
就是本版的第5把交椅的版主， kathylee
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:05:00 2012, 美东) 提到:
OK，希望大蜜和kathylee能看到这篇帖子，不要沉了，万分感激！！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
KFN (求减肥) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:12:50 2012, 美东) 提到:
帮顶。前几位分析很好。Bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:44:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
也只能这么试了。不过有一点不太有利的就是这一作的文章发表在140递交以后，
总之，挺难的。 IO都已经看到了footnote, 怎么吹捧，footnote都写了lz只是参与了
而已。 一旦否定了这点，主体的contribution就立刻fall apart.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:45:24 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个就是推荐信也写得差，看看老枪地发文吧。争取一下业好。
beneficiary
the
public
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:57:32 2012, 美东) 提到:
好吧，总结下大家的观点，就是基本上没希望了，唉，谢谢！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:58:08 2012, 美东) 提到:
也许运气好，还是会过得，认真准备吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:09:42 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless～这三条，每一样都要证明significant impact，其实和重新写一份pl一个工作
量了。
---
木有一座的话，比较麻烦，找某篇重要文章的一座出推荐信说你equal contribution？
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:21:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
恩，关键是现在时间还很赶，7月30号之前要回复,NOID只有30天回复时间。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benzoin (benzoin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:23:12 2012, 美东) 提到:
最近流行NOID了？
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
calmscorpio (calms) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:33:02 2012, 美东) 提到:
目前看1A的审的很严格，还没有递交材料的同志们可以从最近RFE或者NOID的案例中吸
取教训，仔细准备。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
goforeb1 (goforeb1a) 于 (Tue Jul 10 16:18:00 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cyfer (水管) 于 (Tue Jul 10 16:21:59 2012, 美东) 提到:
同感。
be
into
evidence
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cyfer (水管) 于 (Tue Jul 10 16:23:57 2012, 美东) 提到:
死马也要当活马医
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
drydragon (如风) 于 (Wed Jul 11 09:11:25 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个用1b还可以
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Wed Jul 11 11:35:56 2012, 美东) 提到:
没办法用1b啊，单位不给办，唉……
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
wachwu (wachwu) 于 (Wed Jul 11 12:28:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
弱弱地问一下，who is 老枪？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Wed Jul 11 12:31:26 2012, 美东) 提到:
genegun73 (genegun), 这个就是
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
kayabao (baobao) 于 (Wed Jul 11 13:35:16 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless，顶一下贴子，别沉了。
祝顺利，再找点闪光点？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Wed Jul 11 15:12:54 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢，正在进行中，还是没什么头绪啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
NIW (EB-1B approved!) 于 (Wed Jul 11 15:28:56 2012, 美东) 提到:
check your mail
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:07:59 2012, 美东) 提到:
背景： Nov, 15, 2011 non-pp I140 EB1A, Jun 27 NOID, 求版内的xdjm帮忙看看还有
救吗？
以下是NOID的内容：（略去套话）
二步法： 承认了老三样,
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for the following criteria:
Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The petitioner has submitted evidence that he has peer-reviewed two articles
for Environmental Science & Technologt, two articles for International
Journal of Nanomedicine, one article for Biomacromolecules,
and one article for Chemical Science. Participating in the judging of the
work of others in the same or allied field of specialization, regardless of
the circumstances, satisfies the regulatory criteria in part one.
However, the petitioner has not shown how his review of eight articles is
indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very
top of the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or
international acclaim. For example, the record does not show that the
beneficiary:
Served as an expert judge, panelist, or reviewer, for the selection of
recognized prizes and/or memberships in the beneficiary's same or allied
field;
Served in an editorial position(s) for recognized joumals in the
hbeneficiary's same or an allied field;
or
Reviewed a large number of articles for distinguished journals, magazines,
or editorials in the beneficiary's same or allied field.
Additionally, the petitioner submitted evidence of published material in
professional or trade publications or, in major rnedia publications about an
article that he co-wrote. Science Daily published an article regardirrg the
beneficiary's work entitled, which appeared in Plant Physiology. This
satisfies the regulatory criteria of part one. It is noted that the same
article also appeared in Nano Werk and Nano techwire.com, but it has not
been shown that these are major media publications. The article does not
mention the beneficiary by name or his contribution to the project. His name
only appears in the Jountal Reference section. Therefore, the petitioner
has failed to show how the publication of this article indicates that he is
one of that small percentage who has risen to the top of the field of
biophysics and neuroscience and that he is enjoying sustained national or
international acclaim.
The petitioner also submitted evidence that he co-authored four scholarly
articles that were published in professional or major trade publications.
This satisfies the regulatory criteria in part one. However, the petitioner
has failed to show how these four publications are indicative of someone who
has risen to the very top of their field. The petitioner has not shown that
he has consistently published scholarly articles in journals
with the highest impact factors within the field. He has also failed to show
that these articles have advanced the field or set him apart from others in
his field. While it has been shown that one of the beneficiary's
articles, which appeared in PNAS, has been widely cited, a footnote to the
article states that the beneficiary only helped perfom research for the
article. The footnote also states that the other co-authors designed the
research, contributed new reagents/ analytical tools, analyzed the data and
wrote the paper. Thus, the evidence shows that the beneficiary worked on the
project, but was not one of the main contributors to the
article.
Finally, the petitioner submitted testimonial letters from six highly
regarded experts in the field of biophysics and neuroscience. These letters
explained the beneficiary's original contributions to the field, but they
did not show how these contributions were of "major significance" to the
field. For example, most of the letters discuss tlre beneficiary's afticle
that appeared in PNAS. However, as mentioned above, the evidence shows that
he was not one of the main contributors to that article. The
testimonial letters also indicate that the beneficiary's work has advanced
the knowledge in his field of study, and that his work could have an impact
on the field in the future. the record slrows that the beneficiary is a
promising young scientist. However, it has not been shown that at the time
of the filing of the petition, his work has provoked widespread public
commentary or that it has been implemented by others in the field. Also, the
letters do not illustrate how the beneficiary's work is indicative of one
that is of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their
field and is enjoying sustained national or intemational acclaim.
As discussed. USCIS has evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish that the beneficiary is an individual of
extraordinary ability in accordance with 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the INA.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lcan (上网是一种病；灌水更是病入膏肓) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:19:44 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
netoflong (ilovedog) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:23:57 2012, 美东) 提到:
huge bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:29:12 2012, 美东) 提到:
can you introduce your background a little bit? It seems like you have demo
one PNAS paper OF which you are not the first author. This paper has been
slapped by this IO again and again. How many papers especially first author
papers do you
have?
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cruisehot (best lucky) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:50:13 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:50:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
排名前5的学校PHD，现是国家实验室 postdoc, 6篇paper(包括2篇手稿），15个会议以
及talk的abstracts，8篇review，120多个引用
递交140的时候没有一作已发表的文章，但有两篇一作的手稿，现在有一篇已经发表在
analytical chemistry，
demo
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 12:57:43 2012, 美东) 提到:
Frankly speaking, it seems like your case is not that optimistic. It will be
better that you can wait for some more first author papers coming out and
gathering the citation.
Basically without first author paper, it is quite hard to convince that it
is "You" not others to make the signifcant contribution. The IO digged into
the footnote and found the evidence that quite difficult to defense. With
that fact, the chance to argue by using traditional strategy, e.g. asking
supervisor or co-author to write you a letter in your favor, may not be
helpful too much.
One thing that I can think about is that you really can have other evidence
rather than this paper to demonstrate your contribution, e.g. your
commercialized patents, your TPC service, etc.
Bless and please update us with your status.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:01:35 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢大蜜的回复，唉，这个专业出paper太难了
be
into
evidence
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:06:26 2012, 美东) 提到:
大蜜所言极是，问题确实出在第一作者的问题上。一般的case都有两篇第一作者充数，
然后大势宣扬非一作的重点文章。但这个案例的问题是，递交时候没有一篇一作，总体
发表文章数目又是勉强的1A数目，所以很难用数目来掩盖住。一旦被IO发现数目少，没
一作，这就麻烦了。
想问一下，重点突出的贡献那篇是第几作，如果是2作，用传统的通讯和一作写信说明
的方法也许还有希望。附加其他贡献。
be
into
evidence
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:11:22 2012, 美东) 提到:
恩，是二作，可以把最新发表的一作一起加上去吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:29:01 2012, 美东) 提到:
当然可以把一作加上，虽然没有引用，如果和你那篇重点文章有关联性就更好，再次证
明你对这个工作的贡献是突出的，以至于持续的工作中又产生了新的文章，并且是一作
。同时通过论述一作中的具体工作更加验证你那篇重点文章中的贡献。但千万不要重点
强调一作，让IO抓没引用的辫子，谈一作的时候，基本是在谈具体的和前面文章关联的
贡献，把贡献讲的很具体，然后轻描淡写的谈一下被peer-review并且接受发表。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:37:29 2012, 美东) 提到:
好的，多谢！那关于提到推荐人方面的质疑，应该如何回复呢？
The testimonial letters also indicate that the beneficiary's work has
advanced the knowledge in his field of study, and that his work could have
an impact on the field in the future. the record slrows that the beneficiary
is a promising young scientist. However, it has not been shown that at the
time of the filing of the petition, his work has provoked widespread public
commentary or that it has been implemented by others in the field. Also, the
letters do not illustrate how the beneficiary's work is indicative of one
that is of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their
field and is enjoying sustained national or intemational acclaim.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:47:10 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个问题要问大蜜或者美妈（版5）
beneficiary
the
public
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:50:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢！弱弱地问一下，版5是什么意思啊？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
genegun73 (genegun) 于 (Tue Jul 10 13:56:46 2012, 美东) 提到:
就是本版的第5把交椅的版主， kathylee
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:05:00 2012, 美东) 提到:
OK，希望大蜜和kathylee能看到这篇帖子，不要沉了，万分感激！！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
KFN (求减肥) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:12:50 2012, 美东) 提到:
帮顶。前几位分析很好。Bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:44:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
也只能这么试了。不过有一点不太有利的就是这一作的文章发表在140递交以后，
总之，挺难的。 IO都已经看到了footnote, 怎么吹捧，footnote都写了lz只是参与了
而已。 一旦否定了这点，主体的contribution就立刻fall apart.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:45:24 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个就是推荐信也写得差，看看老枪地发文吧。争取一下业好。
beneficiary
the
public
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:57:32 2012, 美东) 提到:
好吧，总结下大家的观点，就是基本上没希望了，唉，谢谢！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
bigbigbee (大蜜蜂: 心诚则灵) 于 (Tue Jul 10 14:58:08 2012, 美东) 提到:
也许运气好，还是会过得，认真准备吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
elsevier (夏花) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:09:42 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless～这三条，每一样都要证明significant impact，其实和重新写一份pl一个工作
量了。
---
木有一座的话，比较麻烦，找某篇重要文章的一座出推荐信说你equal contribution？
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:21:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
恩，关键是现在时间还很赶，7月30号之前要回复,NOID只有30天回复时间。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benzoin (benzoin) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:23:12 2012, 美东) 提到:
最近流行NOID了？
failed
articles
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
calmscorpio (calms) 于 (Tue Jul 10 15:33:02 2012, 美东) 提到:
目前看1A的审的很严格，还没有递交材料的同志们可以从最近RFE或者NOID的案例中吸
取教训，仔细准备。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
goforeb1 (goforeb1a) 于 (Tue Jul 10 16:18:00 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cyfer (水管) 于 (Tue Jul 10 16:21:59 2012, 美东) 提到:
同感。
be
into
evidence
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cyfer (水管) 于 (Tue Jul 10 16:23:57 2012, 美东) 提到:
死马也要当活马医
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
drydragon (如风) 于 (Wed Jul 11 09:11:25 2012, 美东) 提到:
这个用1b还可以
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Wed Jul 11 11:35:56 2012, 美东) 提到:
没办法用1b啊，单位不给办，唉……
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
wachwu (wachwu) 于 (Wed Jul 11 12:28:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
弱弱地问一下，who is 老枪？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Wed Jul 11 12:31:26 2012, 美东) 提到:
genegun73 (genegun), 这个就是
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
kayabao (baobao) 于 (Wed Jul 11 13:35:16 2012, 美东) 提到:
bless，顶一下贴子，别沉了。
祝顺利，再找点闪光点？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
joy861216 (joylin) 于 (Wed Jul 11 15:12:54 2012, 美东) 提到:
谢谢，正在进行中，还是没什么头绪啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
NIW (EB-1B approved!) 于 (Wed Jul 11 15:28:56 2012, 美东) 提到:
check your mail
