提醒一下跟我买UCO的，我已经全出了# Stock
g*n
1 楼
背景: 美国学位, 环境分析方向, 2篇英文一作, 一篇英文二作(老板挂第一,我的工作,
4.7影响因子), 其他作三篇,
会议talk11篇(全是老板第一,我第二).
Citation 来自50个科研机构,近二十个国家
5封推荐信,3美1德一中国faculty
EB1B, claim了 contribution and authorship，
The record demonstrates that the beneficiary was offered a position of XXX
by XX university. The record reflects that beneficiary participated in
numerous research studies and projects. while useful and of potential
benefit, the presented evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary is
internationally recognized as outstanding. evidence submitted must
demonstrated that the beneficiary's work has been both original and a
contribution to the field as a whole.
Further, the evidence of the record, including the various letters,
demonstrates that the beneficiary is a skilled and determined researcher in
the field of XXX. However, the record does not reflect that the academic
community has recognized the value of her work and her contributions to the
field to such an extent as to demonstrate that she has been internationally
recoginzed as outstanding.
while it appears that the beneficiary is currently investigating XX,
designed XX and developed XX, the record fail to establish that the
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in her field.
It is noted that the authors make reference to the practically applicability
of the beneficiary's research. Ultimately, the evdence demonstrates that
the beneficiary's work has promise and potential, but has yet to rise to the
level of contributions to the field as a whole as of the date of filing the
petition. Furthermore, the authors comment on the future significance of
the beneficiary's ongoing work rather than show how her work has already
impacted the field to the extent that it can be considered as being
recognized internationlly as outstanding.
additionally, the commendation letters discuss the beneficiary's published
and presented work as evidence of her original contributions. However,
participation in scientific conferences is routine and expected in the
scientific community and publication of one's findings is inherent to all
researchers. The record contains no documentation showing that presentation
or publication of the beneficiary's work is unusual in her field. Of far
greater importance in this proceeding is the impact and contribution to the
field that the beneficiary's work has already had on the overall field.
Depending on a given field of endeavor, other evidence can satisfactorily
show impact in the field. If the beneficiary has written scholarly articles
, heavy independent citation of those articles would be objective evidence
that other researchers have relied on her work. for an individual who holds
one or more patents, evidence of significant implementation of the patented
innovation should be considered. any other relevant evidence may include,
for example, documentation that the beneficiary's orignial contribution has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field.
moreover, the beneficiary authored articles published in research journals
and conference presentations. However, frequent publication of research
findings is inherent to success as an established researcher and does not
necessarily indicate international acclaim requisite to this classification.
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of the
beneficiary's articles being international cited by other independent
experts in the field of other proof that the beneficiary's publications have
had a significant impact on the field. In this case, the beneficiary's
articles were minimally cited. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how
such limited exposure and recognition demonstrates that the beneficiary's
work has garnered international attention as outstanding. Therefore, the
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's work has attracted a
level of interest in the field commensurate with being internationally
recognized as outstanding.
4.7影响因子), 其他作三篇,
会议talk11篇(全是老板第一,我第二).
Citation 来自50个科研机构,近二十个国家
5封推荐信,3美1德一中国faculty
EB1B, claim了 contribution and authorship，
The record demonstrates that the beneficiary was offered a position of XXX
by XX university. The record reflects that beneficiary participated in
numerous research studies and projects. while useful and of potential
benefit, the presented evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary is
internationally recognized as outstanding. evidence submitted must
demonstrated that the beneficiary's work has been both original and a
contribution to the field as a whole.
Further, the evidence of the record, including the various letters,
demonstrates that the beneficiary is a skilled and determined researcher in
the field of XXX. However, the record does not reflect that the academic
community has recognized the value of her work and her contributions to the
field to such an extent as to demonstrate that she has been internationally
recoginzed as outstanding.
while it appears that the beneficiary is currently investigating XX,
designed XX and developed XX, the record fail to establish that the
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in her field.
It is noted that the authors make reference to the practically applicability
of the beneficiary's research. Ultimately, the evdence demonstrates that
the beneficiary's work has promise and potential, but has yet to rise to the
level of contributions to the field as a whole as of the date of filing the
petition. Furthermore, the authors comment on the future significance of
the beneficiary's ongoing work rather than show how her work has already
impacted the field to the extent that it can be considered as being
recognized internationlly as outstanding.
additionally, the commendation letters discuss the beneficiary's published
and presented work as evidence of her original contributions. However,
participation in scientific conferences is routine and expected in the
scientific community and publication of one's findings is inherent to all
researchers. The record contains no documentation showing that presentation
or publication of the beneficiary's work is unusual in her field. Of far
greater importance in this proceeding is the impact and contribution to the
field that the beneficiary's work has already had on the overall field.
Depending on a given field of endeavor, other evidence can satisfactorily
show impact in the field. If the beneficiary has written scholarly articles
, heavy independent citation of those articles would be objective evidence
that other researchers have relied on her work. for an individual who holds
one or more patents, evidence of significant implementation of the patented
innovation should be considered. any other relevant evidence may include,
for example, documentation that the beneficiary's orignial contribution has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field.
moreover, the beneficiary authored articles published in research journals
and conference presentations. However, frequent publication of research
findings is inherent to success as an established researcher and does not
necessarily indicate international acclaim requisite to this classification.
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of the
beneficiary's articles being international cited by other independent
experts in the field of other proof that the beneficiary's publications have
had a significant impact on the field. In this case, the beneficiary's
articles were minimally cited. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how
such limited exposure and recognition demonstrates that the beneficiary's
work has garnered international attention as outstanding. Therefore, the
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's work has attracted a
level of interest in the field commensurate with being internationally
recognized as outstanding.
