v*********b
发帖数: 785 | 1 Just got fax from TSC. No surprisingly got REF. Could anyone give some
suggestions on how to respond them? Thanks !!!!!!!!!
RD May 13
REF May 27
Claimed contribution, authorship, Judge and membership (I should not claim
this. Didn't know Sigma Xi is not useful but harmful at that time....Sigh).
1) Contribution
The criteria 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. Letters of recommendation written by experts may
be
helpful; however, the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly
contribution of
major significance in the field must be demonstrated by preexisting,
independent, and objective evidence. In evaluating the reference letters,
USCIS
notes that letters containing mere assertions of widespread acclaim and
vague
claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that
specifically identify
contributions and provide specific examples of what major contribution
the
beneficiary has had made in the field. To prove the significance of the
contribution, u may submit:
a) Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the beneficiary'
s
contribution to the field
b)Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the
beneficiary's work important
c)Testimony and or support letters from experts which discuss the
beneficiary's
contribution of major significance
d) Evidence that the work has been widely cited or provoked public
commentary
e) Evidence of the work being implemented by others
2) authorship
This criteria has been met
3)Judge
This criteria has been met
4)Membership (Should have not claimed this one........Regretting...)
I claimed Sigma Xi and ASME (Full Member)
This criteria has not been met becoz no evidence show the association
require outstanding achivements of its members
Could someone give me some suggestions on how to respond the IO.
Thanks a million!!!!!!!!!! |
v*********b
发帖数: 785 | |
v**p
发帖数: 61 | |
q******2
发帖数: 1368 | |
a***n
发帖数: 3951 | |
n***p
发帖数: 7668 | 6 Bless.
claim
time....Sigh).
not
【在 v*********b 的大作中提到】
: Just got fax from TSC. No surprisingly got REF. Could anyone give some
: suggestions on how to respond them? Thanks !!!!!!!!!
: RD May 13
: REF May 27
: Claimed contribution, authorship, Judge and membership (I should not claim
: this. Didn't know Sigma Xi is not useful but harmful at that time....Sigh).
: 1) Contribution
: The criteria has not been met because the evidence submitted does not
: show
: that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
|
b*********r
发帖数: 7139 | 7 at least background, pls. |
v*********b
发帖数: 785 | 8 TSC
1201
【在 v**p 的大作中提到】
: Which IO
|
v*********b
发帖数: 785 | 9 updated background:
non top University phD in ME
seven first authored journal papers (since 2006)
citation: 30
review papers 20 for six journal
References 5 (4 independent)
【在 b*********r 的大作中提到】
: at least background, pls.
|
v*********b
发帖数: 785 | |
|
|
s*******t
发帖数: 7746 | |
b*********r
发帖数: 7139 | 12 PP is not a good choice for your case. But at this point, you need to get
independent letters. Emphasizing specific contributions to your field in the
letters. Good luck.
【在 v*********b 的大作中提到】
: updated background:
: non top University phD in ME
: seven first authored journal papers (since 2006)
: citation: 30
: review papers 20 for six journal
: References 5 (4 independent)
|
f****y
发帖数: 104 | 13 看来你的推荐信没写好。
把你发表的文章，挑几个自己最满意的，找几个独立推荐人给你好好背书。一定要写清
楚你具体贡献是什么，比如首次发现了什么，首次证明了什么，挑战领域多年的一个问
题是什么，这个被你解决了啊之类。 |
p*******h
发帖数: 1542 | |
i*****u
发帖数: 776 | |
A*******n
发帖数: 725 | |
F*********k
发帖数: 2252 | 17 Not sure if you could provide more evidence about contribution, and then
also argue that you already met two of the criteria authorship and judge.
Since EB1 only requires meeting two criteria, can you simply argue you
already met two so you should qualify?
Would appreciate also share your attorney's opinion. Thanks..
【在 v*********b 的大作中提到】
: Just got fax from TSC. No surprisingly got REF. Could anyone give some
: suggestions on how to respond them? Thanks !!!!!!!!!
: RD May 13
: REF May 27
: Claimed contribution, authorship, Judge and membership (I should not claim
: this. Didn't know Sigma Xi is not useful but harmful at that time....Sigh).
: 1) Contribution
: The criteria has not been met because the evidence submitted does not
: show
: that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
|
f*****e
发帖数: 1889 | 18 严重同意这个.
写好推荐信不是件容易的事. 要把复杂的事用简单的语言描述出来, 还要说明你的发现
的重要性, 还要写可以应用到那些地方.
我觉得这个和JOURNAL PAPER 的DISCUSSION部分有些相似. 也和LITERATURE REVIEW 结
尾的不符相似. 别人发现了这个, 那个, 但是我的这文章填补了什么空白. 当然吹的力
度要加大.
【在 f****y 的大作中提到】
: 看来你的推荐信没写好。
: 把你发表的文章，挑几个自己最满意的，找几个独立推荐人给你好好背书。一定要写清
: 楚你具体贡献是什么，比如首次发现了什么，首次证明了什么，挑战领域多年的一个问
: 题是什么，这个被你解决了啊之类。
|
c******g
发帖数: 9273 | 19 this is an old post?
any update? |
