铁矿石要涨价， 股票呢？# Stock
w*p
1 楼
简介请见http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32702511.html
EB1B 申请详解1 —— DIY和签字， 请见http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32702881.html
以下是我读判例是选择关键点抄录的，供大家参考。
From memo “the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a
particular academic field.”
From AAO “The next step, however, is a final merits determination that
considers whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory standard In
this matter, international recognition as outstanding.”
“publication of scholarly articles, while indicative of international
exposure, is not automatically evidence of international recognition.”
“It is important to note at the outset that the controlling purpose of the
regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative
of international recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and
researchers should stand apart in the academic community through eminence
and distinction based on international recognition.”
每一条应该满足part one 和part two - recognized internationally as
outstanding
“a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for
approval as of the date it was filed.” File时所有的证据能够证明，不能依靠对
未来影响力的猜测，避免在pl和rl中采用这种表达。
From AAO about evidence interpretation “Reliance on "Wikipedia" is not
favored by federal courts”
From AAO about media reports “(evidence should ) reflect the actual number
of visitors (of the websites, not "daily reach (percentage)" of these sites”
From AAO about award “Nevertheless, a research grant is principally
designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past
achievement…. a grant, even a competitive grant, is not an award or prize
recognizing an outstanding achievement.”
From AAO about publication
“citations are best considered under this criterion as evidence of the
influence of the beneficiary's published work.”
“While self-citation by a coauthor is a normal and expected process, it
cannot establish the beneficiary's recognition beyond his immediate circle
of colleagues.”
“publication of scholarly articles, while indicative of international
exposure, is not automatically evidence of international recognition.”
“We emphasize that while a widely cited scholarly article can also be
considered as evidence relating to the (contribution), set forth at 8 C.F.R.
5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), that criterion is a separate criterion with different
considerations.”
“Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the Chinese-language
journals have an international circulation as required pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F).”换句话说，应该说明中文杂志的国际发行见worldcat.org
“Several references attest to the distinguished nature of the journals that
have accepted the beneficiary's articles for publication. We will not
presume the impact of an article, however, from the journal in which it
appears. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate the impact of the
individual article.”
From AAO about contribution
“require that the contributions be of "major significance." ”
“Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing
the beneficiary's past projects and demonstrating that the beneficiary's
work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research.
Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary
a master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher.
Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher,
it stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have won
comparable recognition. To argue that all original research is, by
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful
meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal.”
“specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of
how those contributions have influenced the field.”
“submit letters from independent references who affirm their own reliance
on the beneficiary's work or who were even simply familiar with his work
through his reputation.”
“a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that the
beneficiary's recently published research will subsequently prove
influential.”不能展望未来，必须直接说现在就很outstanding 和international
recognition.
“（not only relevant to publication） Citations are also relevant to claims
of original contributions.”
“recent article is widely recognized as laying the groundwork for all
future research in this area, such as coverage in trade journals, general
media coverage or wide and frequent citation.”
From AAO about reference letters 细节化，不能空洞赞扬“In evaluating the
reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of
widespread recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive
than letters that specifically identify contributions and provide specific
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition,
letters from independent references who were previously aware of the
petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work are the most
persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of
the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially
for submission with the petition. An individual with international
recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that
recognition.”
“Referees should provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's work is
impacting the field.”
“suggest the (reference) author has applied the beneficiary's work.”
“The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot
form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition.”单
凭推荐人的夸奖，不能确定contribution 国际名声。
Sample from AAO “Through his extensive research, numerous publications, and
speaking engagements, he has established himself as one of the foremost
authorities and experts in the area of
quality of service for mobile transactions. Moreover, [the beneficiary's]
work in this area is well-known and has come to be relied upon for its
accuracy and integrity.”
“letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
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.”
From AAO about review “peer review is routine in the field; not every peer
reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without evidence that sets the
beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has
reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of
referees; reviewed an unusually large number of articles; received
independent requests from a substantial number of journals; or served in an
editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the
beneficiary meets this criterion.”
“peer review is routine in the field; not every peer review is indicative
of or consistent with international recognition on the part of the referee.”
待续。
EB1B 申请详解1 —— DIY和签字， 请见http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/32702881.html
以下是我读判例是选择关键点抄录的，供大家参考。
From memo “the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a
particular academic field.”
From AAO “The next step, however, is a final merits determination that
considers whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory standard In
this matter, international recognition as outstanding.”
“publication of scholarly articles, while indicative of international
exposure, is not automatically evidence of international recognition.”
“It is important to note at the outset that the controlling purpose of the
regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative
of international recognition. More specifically, outstanding professors and
researchers should stand apart in the academic community through eminence
and distinction based on international recognition.”
每一条应该满足part one 和part two - recognized internationally as
outstanding
“a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for
approval as of the date it was filed.” File时所有的证据能够证明，不能依靠对
未来影响力的猜测，避免在pl和rl中采用这种表达。
From AAO about evidence interpretation “Reliance on "Wikipedia" is not
favored by federal courts”
From AAO about media reports “(evidence should ) reflect the actual number
of visitors (of the websites, not "daily reach (percentage)" of these sites”
From AAO about award “Nevertheless, a research grant is principally
designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past
achievement…. a grant, even a competitive grant, is not an award or prize
recognizing an outstanding achievement.”
From AAO about publication
“citations are best considered under this criterion as evidence of the
influence of the beneficiary's published work.”
“While self-citation by a coauthor is a normal and expected process, it
cannot establish the beneficiary's recognition beyond his immediate circle
of colleagues.”
“publication of scholarly articles, while indicative of international
exposure, is not automatically evidence of international recognition.”
“We emphasize that while a widely cited scholarly article can also be
considered as evidence relating to the (contribution), set forth at 8 C.F.R.
5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E), that criterion is a separate criterion with different
considerations.”
“Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the Chinese-language
journals have an international circulation as required pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F).”换句话说，应该说明中文杂志的国际发行见worldcat.org
“Several references attest to the distinguished nature of the journals that
have accepted the beneficiary's articles for publication. We will not
presume the impact of an article, however, from the journal in which it
appears. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate the impact of the
individual article.”
From AAO about contribution
“require that the contributions be of "major significance." ”
“Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion simply by listing
the beneficiary's past projects and demonstrating that the beneficiary's
work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research.
Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary
a master's degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher.
Because the goal of the regulatory criteria is to demonstrate that the
beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher,
it stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have won
comparable recognition. To argue that all original research is, by
definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful
meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal.”
“specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of
how those contributions have influenced the field.”
“submit letters from independent references who affirm their own reliance
on the beneficiary's work or who were even simply familiar with his work
through his reputation.”
“a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that the
beneficiary's recently published research will subsequently prove
influential.”不能展望未来，必须直接说现在就很outstanding 和international
recognition.
“（not only relevant to publication） Citations are also relevant to claims
of original contributions.”
“recent article is widely recognized as laying the groundwork for all
future research in this area, such as coverage in trade journals, general
media coverage or wide and frequent citation.”
From AAO about reference letters 细节化，不能空洞赞扬“In evaluating the
reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of
widespread recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive
than letters that specifically identify contributions and provide specific
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition,
letters from independent references who were previously aware of the
petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work are the most
persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of
the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially
for submission with the petition. An individual with international
recognition should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that
recognition.”
“Referees should provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's work is
impacting the field.”
“suggest the (reference) author has applied the beneficiary's work.”
“The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot
form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition.”单
凭推荐人的夸奖，不能确定contribution 国际名声。
Sample from AAO “Through his extensive research, numerous publications, and
speaking engagements, he has established himself as one of the foremost
authorities and experts in the area of
quality of service for mobile transactions. Moreover, [the beneficiary's]
work in this area is well-known and has come to be relied upon for its
accuracy and integrity.”
“letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
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.”
From AAO about review “peer review is routine in the field; not every peer
reviewer enjoys international recognition. Without evidence that sets the
beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has
reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of
referees; reviewed an unusually large number of articles; received
independent requests from a substantial number of journals; or served in an
editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the
beneficiary meets this criterion.”
“peer review is routine in the field; not every peer review is indicative
of or consistent with international recognition on the part of the referee.”
待续。
