|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L***9
发帖数: 7 | 1 我是EB1A+PP， 10 天后RFE. IO 的意见如下。 我的背景在http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/32520699.html
从comments 看，我的major significance 没有反映出来。 我在版上搜了很久， 没有
找到侧重说明怎莫突出major significance. 请大蜜，夏花还有其他高手帮忙点评一下
我怎莫去说明这一点。谢谢！！
(v) Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, artistic, athletic
, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
The petitioner has provided opinion letters by experts in the beneficiary's
field and evidence establishing moderated citation of the beneficiary's work
. However, 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. To assist in determining
whether the beneficiary's contributions satisfy this criterion, the
petitioner may submit:
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the
beneficiary's contribution to the field.
• Documentary evidence that people through the field currently
consider the beneficiary's work important.
• Additional testimony and/or support letters from experts which
discuss the beneficiary's contributions of major significance. (See note
below)
• Evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contribution(s)
has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely
cited.
• Evidence of the 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 s
possible about the beneficiary's contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and of “major” significance. General statements regarding the
importance or the potential of the endeavors which are not supported by
documentary evidence are insufficient. | v******7
发帖数: 131 | 2 看样子那个是模板，和我的一摸一样。您上下背景先，明天等高手上来解答一下！ | v******7
发帖数: 131 | 3 楼主的IO 是哪个？是不是NSC EX0661? | b*******e
发帖数: 24532 | 4 What he said is that your RLs are not good enough.
athletic
s
work
【在 L***9 的大作中提到】
: 我是EB1A+PP， 10 天后RFE. IO 的意见如下。 我的背景在http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Immigration/32520699.html
: 从comments 看，我的major significance 没有反映出来。 我在版上搜了很久， 没有
: 找到侧重说明怎莫突出major significance. 请大蜜，夏花还有其他高手帮忙点评一下
: 我怎莫去说明这一点。谢谢！！
: (v) Evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, artistic, athletic
: , or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
: The petitioner has provided opinion letters by experts in the beneficiary's
: field and evidence establishing moderated citation of the beneficiary's work
: . However, this criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted
: does not show that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of
| L***9
发帖数: 7 | 5 我同意，我用的都是原来申请NIW的信。大蜜， 你觉得我应该准备几封推荐信合适？你
能推荐几个好的RL 的模板吗。谢谢！！
【在 b*******e 的大作中提到】
: What he said is that your RLs are not good enough.
:
: athletic
: s
: work
| n*********t
发帖数: 258 | 6 我这两种套路完全不同呐。重新写几封应该过的几率很大。
【在 L***9 的大作中提到】
: 我同意，我用的都是原来申请NIW的信。大蜜， 你觉得我应该准备几封推荐信合适？你
: 能推荐几个好的RL 的模板吗。谢谢！！
| d******g
发帖数: 988 | 7 For EB1 application, RL has to have "original", and use "outstanding", "
extraordinary', "exceptional" to prove small percent. | f****i
发帖数: 62 | 8 我的case得到了类似的RFE,IO是EX0453。正发愁呢，希望大家多多指点 | z****y
发帖数: 6864 | | s*********n
发帖数: 937 | 10 我一模一样的模版RFE, 一个字不变。NSC的。还在准备RFE。我觉得IO都没仔细看我的
PL，没挑出细节来说。 | z*****g
发帖数: 558 | 11 在我们的“intend to deny”回复时，我们只有30天的准备时间，但是又递交了8封独
立推荐信来自5个国家。然后approve了。
所以我觉得如果时间允许，要尽量多的准备推荐信。应该是有用的。 | M*****e
发帖数: 4550 | 12 请问下dong ding，original是跟innovation一起用吗，还是跟original works一起用？
【在 d******g 的大作中提到】
: For EB1 application, RL has to have "original", and use "outstanding", "
: extraordinary', "exceptional" to prove small percent.
| C*******0
发帖数: 1044 | 13 这几个词都用烂了 每篇都用好几次。。。。
【在 d******g 的大作中提到】
: For EB1 application, RL has to have "original", and use "outstanding", "
: extraordinary', "exceptional" to prove small percent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
