给各位说声抱歉了~~~~# Piebridge - 鹊桥
t*f
1 楼
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
补充下条件：
Mechanical Engineering, Phd
11 Papers, 提交时87 citations in total(没有区分自他引)，
6 RL(5 independent,只有2篇来自引用的人)
现在citation涨了点，一共正好100,不过几乎全是中国人引用的。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
3月27号就被RFE了，无奈总是收不到RFE,Submit了2个service request都么有等到，终
于在congressman的帮助下今天搞到RFE了，一共耗时45天，估计人品都集中放在h1b抽
签去了，anyway，今天终于收到了，貌似承认了review, authorship,质疑了
contribution。
我把RFE贴在这里啊，麻烦大家帮忙看看，出出主意啊，还有接近40天的时候准备回复。
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation, either individually or on a
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that the plain
language of this criterion has been met.
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The record contains evidence regarding the beneficiary’s peer reviews,
scholarly articles/abstracts, conference proceedings, and support letters
that attest to his research on the “xxx”, “xxx”, etc.
This criterion has not been met because the record does not demonstrate that
the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in
the field, as a whole. While support letters are important, they cannot
substitute for objective documentary evidence which establishes that the
beneficiary has contributed significantly to the field.
The support letters agree that the beneficiary’s work is “a great
scientific resource” for other researchers and that his findings are a “
notable advance” in the field. However, every researcher that adds to the
general pool of knowledge has not necessarily made a contribution of major
significance in the field, as a whole. Thus, although the beneficiary’s
research has a citation following and has added to the general pool of
knowledge, the record lacks documentary evidence which demonstrates its
impact and significance in the field. To assist in determining whether the
beneficiary’s contributions (in the plural) are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contributions to the field.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field.
With respect to the beneficiary’s peer reviews, scholarly articles/
abstracts, and conference proceedings, nothing in the record establishes
that these accomplishments are considered to be original contributions of
major significance in the field.
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in the
field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that the plain
language of this criterion has been met.
As discussed above, the beneficiary has not garnered a one-time achievement
award or met at least three of the ten criteria. As such, USCIS is
affording the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence to
establish that the beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria. The response
to this request should address the insufficiencies articulated by USCIS in
this request.
Additionally, meeting the minimum regulatory criteria outlined above, alone,
will not establish eligibility for the E11 immigrant classification. Any
evidence submitted in response to this request, should also articulate how
the evidence establishes that the beneficiary possesses the required high
level of expertise for the E11 immigrant classification.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to articulate further details or
provide additional evidence in regards to how the evidence submitted in the
initial filing or in response to this Request for Evidence establishes that
the beneficiary meets the requirements regarding the required high level of
expertise for the immigrant classification.
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.
o In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” national
or international 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 one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
In conclusion, when ultimately making a final decision regarding eligibility
, USCIS will first evaluate the evidence submitted by the petitioner to
determine which regulatory criteria the beneficiary meets in part one of the
analyses. If the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary has received
a one-time achievement (a major internationally recognized award) or meets
at least three of the antecedent evidentiary prongs, then USCIS will
evaluate all of the evidence in the record to make a final merits
determination of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the
evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary has sustained national or
international acclaim and that the beneficiary’s achievements have been
recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one
of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of
endeavor.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to meet their legal burden of proof to
establish eligibility in all respects. Whenever any person makes an
application for an immigration benefit, they shall bear the burden of proof
to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the petitioner
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is
more likely than not, that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the
benefit sought. Accordingly, the decision will be based on the initial
evidence submitted upon filing and all additional evidence submitted in
response to this request.
You must submit the requested information within eighty-four (84) days from
the date of this letter (87 days if this notice was received by mail).
Failure to do so may result in the denial of the petition.
Please note the required deadline for providing a response to this Request
for Evidence. The deadline reflects the maximum period for responding to
this RFE. However, since many immigration benefits are time sensitive, you
are encouraged to respond to this request as early as possible, but no later
than the date provided on the request.
-----
补充下条件：
Mechanical Engineering, Phd
11 Papers, 提交时87 citations in total(没有区分自他引)，
6 RL(5 independent,只有2篇来自引用的人)
现在citation涨了点，一共正好100,不过几乎全是中国人引用的。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
3月27号就被RFE了，无奈总是收不到RFE,Submit了2个service request都么有等到，终
于在congressman的帮助下今天搞到RFE了，一共耗时45天，估计人品都集中放在h1b抽
签去了，anyway，今天终于收到了，貌似承认了review, authorship,质疑了
contribution。
我把RFE贴在这里啊，麻烦大家帮忙看看，出出主意啊，还有接近40天的时候准备回复。
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation, either individually or on a
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of
specialization for which classification is sought.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that the plain
language of this criterion has been met.
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the
field.
The record contains evidence regarding the beneficiary’s peer reviews,
scholarly articles/abstracts, conference proceedings, and support letters
that attest to his research on the “xxx”, “xxx”, etc.
This criterion has not been met because the record does not demonstrate that
the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in
the field, as a whole. While support letters are important, they cannot
substitute for objective documentary evidence which establishes that the
beneficiary has contributed significantly to the field.
The support letters agree that the beneficiary’s work is “a great
scientific resource” for other researchers and that his findings are a “
notable advance” in the field. However, every researcher that adds to the
general pool of knowledge has not necessarily made a contribution of major
significance in the field, as a whole. Thus, although the beneficiary’s
research has a citation following and has added to the general pool of
knowledge, the record lacks documentary evidence which demonstrates its
impact and significance in the field. To assist in determining whether the
beneficiary’s contributions (in the plural) are original and of major
significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary’s contributions to the field.
• Evidence of the beneficiary’s work being implemented by others.
Possible evidence may include but is not limited to:
o Contracts with companies using the beneficiary’s products;
o Licensed technology being used by others;
o Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the
field.
With respect to the beneficiary’s peer reviews, scholarly articles/
abstracts, and conference proceedings, nothing in the record establishes
that these accomplishments are considered to be original contributions of
major significance in the field.
--Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in the
field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, it appears that the plain
language of this criterion has been met.
As discussed above, the beneficiary has not garnered a one-time achievement
award or met at least three of the ten criteria. As such, USCIS is
affording the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional evidence to
establish that the beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria. The response
to this request should address the insufficiencies articulated by USCIS in
this request.
Additionally, meeting the minimum regulatory criteria outlined above, alone,
will not establish eligibility for the E11 immigrant classification. Any
evidence submitted in response to this request, should also articulate how
the evidence establishes that the beneficiary possesses the required high
level of expertise for the E11 immigrant classification.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to articulate further details or
provide additional evidence in regards to how the evidence submitted in the
initial filing or in response to this Request for Evidence establishes that
the beneficiary meets the requirements regarding the required high level of
expertise for the immigrant classification.
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.
o In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” national
or international 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 one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
In conclusion, when ultimately making a final decision regarding eligibility
, USCIS will first evaluate the evidence submitted by the petitioner to
determine which regulatory criteria the beneficiary meets in part one of the
analyses. If the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary has received
a one-time achievement (a major internationally recognized award) or meets
at least three of the antecedent evidentiary prongs, then USCIS will
evaluate all of the evidence in the record to make a final merits
determination of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the
evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary has sustained national or
international acclaim and that the beneficiary’s achievements have been
recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one
of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of
endeavor.
This is the petitioner’s opportunity to meet their legal burden of proof to
establish eligibility in all respects. Whenever any person makes an
application for an immigration benefit, they shall bear the burden of proof
to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the petitioner
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is
more likely than not, that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the
benefit sought. Accordingly, the decision will be based on the initial
evidence submitted upon filing and all additional evidence submitted in
response to this request.
You must submit the requested information within eighty-four (84) days from
the date of this letter (87 days if this notice was received by mail).
Failure to do so may result in the denial of the petition.
Please note the required deadline for providing a response to this Request
for Evidence. The deadline reflects the maximum period for responding to
this RFE. However, since many immigration benefits are time sensitive, you
are encouraged to respond to this request as early as possible, but no later
than the date provided on the request.
