Panasonic卖给海尔了# PhotoGear - 摄影器材
n*0
1 楼
各位 XDJM，大家好！
申请EB1-A（NSC）被RFE，求大家给些建议如何回复，十万分感激！！
11/26寄出材料，直接PP，12/5收到RFE。IO#：0603
个人基本情况如下：
（1）目前不知名学校postdoc,专业化学（催化）
(2) 英文27， 一作13 （IF，3-7）；review: 80, 19 journals; google scholar
citation: 270; no award and media report.
IO承认了review and authorship,质疑contributions,具体如下：
The petitioner has submitted reference letters and a citation record. This
criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show that
the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be
of major significance in the field of endeavor. Reference letters solicited
in support of an immigration petition are given less weight than preexisting
, independent evidence that one would expect of an
individual who has made original contributions of major significance in the
field of endeavor.
Reference letters without additional, specific and independent evidence
showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, widely
applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of
contributions of major significance, are not enough to persuade us that the
beneficiary meets this criterion. Submitting documentation reflecting that
the beneficiary's work has been cited by others in their published articles
is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without
documentary evidence reflecting that the beneficiary's work has been of
major significance in the field. The petitioner has not established the
impact or influence of the beneficiary's work. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary's contributions are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary's contribution to the field.
o Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary's work important.
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary's contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contribution(s)
has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely
cited.
• Evidence ofthe beneficiary's work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to: contracts with
companies using the beneficiary's products;
licensed technology being used by others; patents currently being utilized
and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must explain, indetail,
how the contribution was "original" (not merely
replicating the work of others) and how they were of"major" significance.
General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not
supported by documentary evidence are
insufficient.
申请EB1-A（NSC）被RFE，求大家给些建议如何回复，十万分感激！！
11/26寄出材料，直接PP，12/5收到RFE。IO#：0603
个人基本情况如下：
（1）目前不知名学校postdoc,专业化学（催化）
(2) 英文27， 一作13 （IF，3-7）；review: 80, 19 journals; google scholar
citation: 270; no award and media report.
IO承认了review and authorship,质疑contributions,具体如下：
The petitioner has submitted reference letters and a citation record. This
criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show that
the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be
of major significance in the field of endeavor. Reference letters solicited
in support of an immigration petition are given less weight than preexisting
, independent evidence that one would expect of an
individual who has made original contributions of major significance in the
field of endeavor.
Reference letters without additional, specific and independent evidence
showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, widely
applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of
contributions of major significance, are not enough to persuade us that the
beneficiary meets this criterion. Submitting documentation reflecting that
the beneficiary's work has been cited by others in their published articles
is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without
documentary evidence reflecting that the beneficiary's work has been of
major significance in the field. The petitioner has not established the
impact or influence of the beneficiary's work. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary's contributions are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary's contribution to the field.
o Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider
the beneficiary's work important.
• Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary's contributions of major significance.
• Evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contribution(s)
has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely
cited.
• Evidence ofthe beneficiary's work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to: contracts with
companies using the beneficiary's products;
licensed technology being used by others; patents currently being utilized
and shown to be significant to the field.
Note: Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must explain, indetail,
how the contribution was "original" (not merely
replicating the work of others) and how they were of"major" significance.
General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors which are not
supported by documentary evidence are
insufficient.
