j*******3
发帖数: 940 | 1 okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
我的背景简单如下：
1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
claim了
2, citation 比较弱，〉20
3, review >30, 7 journals.
4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
第二步（final merits analysis）,所有claim的都不承认，而且一条一条的批得血淋
淋的。
关于 review work, 说我“satisfies the plain language of the regulatory
criteria in part one." "However, it has not been shown that this
level of participation in the peer-review process has garnered international
recognition for the beneficiary,especially when compared to service as an
editor for a scientific journal or as a judge for recognized awards or
memberships in the field." 这是什么意思？拿我的review work跟editor比？ 我
觉得我提供了两封editor的信，都说了我的review work不是retine, 是因为我
outerstanding, internationally reorganized,才找我的，被IO华丽丽的ignore了。
关于authorship,说"researchers are expected to disseminate the findings of
their research in this way, and it has not been shown that the beneficiary's
work is indicative of international recognition in the field of XXX."
关于贡献，说我的推荐信"do not establish that this work has garnered
international recognition as outstanding. There is no indication of the
widespread adoption by the field of this approach, or that adaptation of
this approach by others has occurred at the internationallevel.",我推荐信里
出现了那么多“original”,"outstanding","internationally recognition",还被我
highlight,结果全部忽视。
当然纠出了memebership狠批，说这个membership "is no indication that it is
meant as an indicator of outstanding professional achievement".
下面我付上notice的主要部分，请大家给出出主意，还有没有可能扳回来，还是索性撤
掉再递？
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
• Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic
field
• Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (
in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for the following criteria:
1. Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic
field which require outstanding achievements of their members.
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary became a Fellow of
the American xxx in 2011. In addition, the evidence shows that the process
for becoming a Fellow includes application, the submission of written
material, and an oral exam, The materials explain that scientific candidates
such as the beneficiary must have at least three scientific publications,
and that the oral examination is based upon the credentials and written
materials submitted by the candidate, Minimum requirements such as education
, employment in the field, payment of dues or, in this case, a minimum level
of work product, are not outstanding achievements and thus cannot serve to
meet the requirements of this criterion.
2, Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic field,The petitioner submitted reference
letters from the following individuals:
Dr. P
Dr. Joh
Dr. Ra
Dr, R,
Dr, A
Dr. J
While these letters indicate that the beneficiary used an existing xxx
instrument in an original way to measure xxx, and published articles and
presented papers on this topic, it has not been established that this
research can be considered a contribution to the field, In addition, the
petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary's work has been cited
by researchers other than those he has collaborated approximately 20 times.
It is not apparent that this level of interest in the beneficiary's work
can be considered a contribution to the overall field of xxx such that it
has been implemented by others or widely cited.
Note: 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), General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors are
insufficient.
If the petitioner believes the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USCIS has determined that the petitioner has failed
to establish eligibility under, or any additional regulatory criteria, the
petitioner should submit clarifying evidence, or submit additional evidence
in response to this portion of the notice of intent to deny,
Final Merits Analysis
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has
met at least 2 of the 6 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make a final merits determination,of
whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has
demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise
required for the El2 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the
E12 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary being recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the
petition,
The petitioner has submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership as a
Fellow in the XXXX. As discussed above, the evidence does not establish that
this membership is indicative of international recognition in the field of
xxx, The materials indicate that the process of becoming a fellow "is
designed to help the
candidate develop as a professional," and there is no indication that it is
meant as an indicator of outstanding professional achievement
The petitioner has also submitted evidence that the beneficiary has served
as a reviewer for several scientific journals in his field. Participating in
the judging of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field
satisfies the plain language of the regulatory criteria in part one. However
, it has not been shown that this
level of participation in the peer-review process has garnered international
recognition for the beneficiary,especially when compared to service as an
editor for a scientific journal or as a judge for recognized awards or
memberships in the field.
In addition, the record includes evidence of the beneficiary's articles
which have been published in scientific journals. However, researchers are
expected to disseminate the findings of their research in this way, and it
has not been shown that the beneficiary's work is indicative of
international recognition in the field of XXX.
Finally, the petitioner has submitted reference letters from independent
experts in the field, some of whom have cited to the beneficiary's published
research in their own work. While these letters indicate that the
beneficiary has developed a novel approach in his use of xxx instruments,
they do not establish that this work has garnered international recognition
as outstanding. There is no indication of the widespread adoption by the
field of this approach, or that adaptation of this approach by others has
occurred at the internationallevel.
As discussed, USCIS has evaluated the evidence and determined that the
evidence does not establish that the beneficiary is an outstanding professor
or researcher in accordance with 203(b)(1 )(B)(i) ofthe INA.
Lastly, pursuant to section 291 of the INA, whenever any person makes an
application for an immigration benefit, they shall bear the burden of proof
to establish eligibility. Accordingly, the petitioner must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence, in other words, that it is more likely than
not, that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought See Matter of
E-M-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 77 (BIA 1989). After a careful review and analysis of
all evidence within the record, USCIS finds that the petitioner has not
established eligibility for the benefit sought
The petitioner is hereby notified that it is the intent of USC IS to deny
this Form 1-140 Petition. The petitioner has 30 (thirty) days (33 (thirty-
three) days if this notice is received by mail) to submit evidence in
response to this reqnest. Any evidence submitted will be carefully reviewed.
Failure to submit evidence in response to
this notice of intent to deny will result in the denial of this Form 1-140
Petition based upon the reasons set forth in this notice.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% | x***h
发帖数: 9020 | 2 bless
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| p*****3
发帖数: 1168 | | g*********s
发帖数: 859 | | z***b
发帖数: 4667 | 5 是哪个IO啊
review和authorship你把那些journal的排名列出来了没有？
要显示你都在top journal上面发文章和review文章
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| M**1
发帖数: 1219 | | b****6
发帖数: 1254 | | g****2
发帖数: 155 | |
| d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 9 Sorry for hearing this.
个人看法：首先EB1B claim两项就可以了。除非背景特别强，claim三项。你的
publication 和 citation都比较弱，不应该单独claim authorship。从你的情况来看
，应该claim 1. Contribution (把所有能放到这里都放上)；2. Review。
USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
criteria:
• Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic
field
----承认了审稿
• Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (
in scholarly journals with international circulation) in the academic field
----承认了authorship (但这并不等于承认了original contribution
)
USCIS has determined that the petitioner provided documentation, but failed
to establish eligibility for the following criteria:
1. Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic
field which require outstanding achievements of their members.
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary became a Fellow of
the American xxx in 2011. In addition, the evidence shows that the process
for becoming a Fellow includes application, the submission of written
material, and an oral exam, The materials explain that scientific candidates
such as the beneficiary must have at least three scientific publications,
and that the oral examination is based upon the credentials and written
materials submitted by the candidate, Minimum requirements such as education
, employment in the field, payment of dues or, in this case, a minimum level
of work product, are not outstanding achievements and thus cannot serve to
meet the requirements of this criterion.
----完全不承认membership (这个不奇怪，membership很容易招RFE)，回NOID时，考虑
放弃这一点，因为你也没有单独claim，。
2, Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic field,The petitioner submitted reference
letters from the following individuals:
Dr. P
Dr. Joh
Dr. Ra
Dr, R,
Dr, A
Dr. J
While these letters indicate that the beneficiary used an existing xxx
instrument in an original way to measure xxx, and published articles and
presented papers on this topic, it has not been established that this
research can be considered a contribution to the field, In addition, the
petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary's work has been cited
by researchers other than those he has collaborated approximately 20 times.
It is not apparent that this level of interest in the beneficiary's work
can be considered a contribution to the overall field of xxx such that it
has been implemented by others or widely cited.
----不承认original，并且因为低的citation，所以也不认为你的工作是a
contribution to the overall field of xxx。
Note: 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), General statements regarding the importance of the endeavors are
insufficient.
----在找两封推荐信，最后是引用过你文章的，按照“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)”来写推荐信。特别是针对后面IO提到的“While these letters indicate
that the
beneficiary has developed a novel approach in his use of xxx instruments”，
因为IO根据这一点，否认了你的original contribution 和你的outstanding。
If the petitioner believes the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USCIS has determined that the petitioner has failed
to establish eligibility under, or any additional regulatory criteria, the
petitioner should submit clarifying evidence, or submit additional evidence
in response to this portion of the notice of intent to deny,
Final Merits Analysis
（省略）对上面IO自己的决定的总结。
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| d******r
发帖数: 865 | | | | k********g
发帖数: 1686 | 11 Bless!
【在 d******r 的大作中提到】
: jia you!
: bless!
| g*********2
发帖数: 73 | | r**n
发帖数: 578 | 13 Agree! It was not too bad, and just like the regular RFE.
Hope LZ fight back, since I feel there is still chance, since they already
admitted two out of three. It is really hard to get ready in one month, but
I hope things will work out for LZ!
regulatory
academic
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: Sorry for hearing this.
: 个人看法：首先EB1B claim两项就可以了。除非背景特别强，claim三项。你的
: publication 和 citation都比较弱，不应该单独claim authorship。从你的情况来看
: ，应该claim 1. Contribution (把所有能放到这里都放上)；2. Review。
: USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
: documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
: criteria:
: • Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
: panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic
: field
| y*********n
发帖数: 763 | | l*****n
发帖数: 1352 | | q****k
发帖数: 1023 | 16 EB1-B需要Claim三样么？
审稿不独立Claim（你审稿挺多的），插入Authorship和Contribution里，是不是更好
？有没有人这么干过？
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| q****k
发帖数: 1023 | 17 分析得好。
regulatory
academic
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: Sorry for hearing this.
: 个人看法：首先EB1B claim两项就可以了。除非背景特别强，claim三项。你的
: publication 和 citation都比较弱，不应该单独claim authorship。从你的情况来看
: ，应该claim 1. Contribution (把所有能放到这里都放上)；2. Review。
: USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
: documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
: criteria:
: • Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
: panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic
: field
| x****l
发帖数: 978 | 18 祝福！运气不好而已。好好准备RFE，会过的。
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| x*****a
发帖数: 3056 | | j*******3
发帖数: 940 | 20 谢谢宝贵意见，那我是应该一条条回应呢还是笼统的回应。这个membership很难处理，
是不回应还是再找证据，比如会员里谁谁谁是大牛？
感觉IO看材料的时候一旦看到他认为weak的地方就揪住批，而且忽视其他材料，比如推
荐信，我认为已经很具体了，有非常多的detail，IO就是不看，不承认。
regulatory
academic
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: Sorry for hearing this.
: 个人看法：首先EB1B claim两项就可以了。除非背景特别强，claim三项。你的
: publication 和 citation都比较弱，不应该单独claim authorship。从你的情况来看
: ，应该claim 1. Contribution (把所有能放到这里都放上)；2. Review。
: USCIS has determined that the petitioner has provided sufficient
: documentation to establish the beneficiary has met the following regulatory
: criteria:
: • Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a
: panel, as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic
: field
| | | d*******n
发帖数: 4778 | 21 一定要逐条回应，表明你很认真地读了他的comments。
membership的确很难处理，你可以再找找证据，就像你说的“会员里谁谁谁是大牛”（
但你要小心，这个大牛可能会让IO更认为你不牛）
IO很有可能没有完全读了你提供的RLs,所以在重新组织一下，可以重复你原来已经很
detail的叙述。但要注意，看你所叙述的是不是fact
再找两封推荐信，请求他们help you out，一般会很快得到答复。
好好准备，还是有希望的。
Bless!
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢宝贵意见，那我是应该一条条回应呢还是笼统的回应。这个membership很难处理，
: 是不回应还是再找证据，比如会员里谁谁谁是大牛？
: 感觉IO看材料的时候一旦看到他认为weak的地方就揪住批，而且忽视其他材料，比如推
: 荐信，我认为已经很具体了，有非常多的detail，IO就是不看，不承认。
:
: regulatory
: academic
| l*******e
发帖数: 273 | 22 关于research contribution， 看是否能找到引用过你文章的人写一下推荐信。说一下
你的工作是original的，然后说一下你的工作对他们的工作有一定的帮助。这个可以说
明你的工作对你的领域是有contribution的。不过这种信不是特别的好要。Big big
bless!
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| t*********e
发帖数: 444 | 23 bless,软胁应该是io 认为citation数量不够。 | s*******i
发帖数: 1063 | 24 citation是相对的，看你在哪个领域。如果是很偏门的领域，可以跟别人比较一下，不
然能不提就不提。我的citation就稍微比你多一点，但是行业特殊。
主要是contribution上，要找亮点，比如你的什么贡献被implement了，而不要把注意
力吸引到谁引用了你的文章，但是你的引用很少
authorship
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: okay,及其郁闷的等了几天后，今天终于从HR那里拿到了NOID Notice. IO #661
: 我的背景简单如下：
: 1, 6 journal publications, ~15 conference abstracts, 写在一起当成authorship
: claim了
: 2, citation 比较弱，〉20
: 3, review >30, 7 journals.
: 4, 6封推荐信，都是独立推荐人，分布比较广，几大洲都有
: Claim了老三样， 有一个行业内部的Fellowship， 没敢单独claim,但是放在
: contribution里说了，结果还是在noid里被纠出来狠批了，教训阿！！！
: 两步法，第一步，承认review, authorship, 不承认membership 和 contribution。
| j*******3
发帖数: 940 | 25 谢谢。
我们的领域确实很窄，所以我和同领域的其他citation比较了，top 10, IO根本不理。
【在 s*******i 的大作中提到】
: citation是相对的，看你在哪个领域。如果是很偏门的领域，可以跟别人比较一下，不
: 然能不提就不提。我的citation就稍微比你多一点，但是行业特殊。
: 主要是contribution上，要找亮点，比如你的什么贡献被implement了，而不要把注意
: 力吸引到谁引用了你的文章，但是你的引用很少
:
: authorship
| j*******3
发帖数: 940 | 26 再次感谢！！
那我就准备逐条回应。再去要几封推荐信。
【在 d*******n 的大作中提到】
: 一定要逐条回应，表明你很认真地读了他的comments。
: membership的确很难处理，你可以再找找证据，就像你说的“会员里谁谁谁是大牛”（
: 但你要小心，这个大牛可能会让IO更认为你不牛）
: IO很有可能没有完全读了你提供的RLs,所以在重新组织一下，可以重复你原来已经很
: detail的叙述。但要注意，看你所叙述的是不是fact
: 再找两封推荐信，请求他们help you out，一般会很快得到答复。
: 好好准备，还是有希望的。
: Bless!
| j*******3
发帖数: 940 | 27 谢谢！
其实我的推荐信4/6都是引用我的文章的人签的。有的文章是大段大段引用的，我只能
把这些再组织一下回应io, 希望他不要选择性忽视。。
【在 l*******e 的大作中提到】
: 关于research contribution， 看是否能找到引用过你文章的人写一下推荐信。说一下
: 你的工作是original的，然后说一下你的工作对他们的工作有一定的帮助。这个可以说
: 明你的工作对你的领域是有contribution的。不过这种信不是特别的好要。Big big
: bless!
:
: authorship
| s*******i
发帖数: 1063 | 28 我觉得引用少的话就尽量避重就轻，转移话题，不要硬比citation
不然的话万一正好前面批一个生物或者化学的，几百个citation
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢。
: 我们的领域确实很窄，所以我和同领域的其他citation比较了，top 10, IO根本不理。
| s******s
发帖数: 1584 | | d***y
发帖数: 8107 | 30 1B只要求claim2项，就没必要画蛇添足。再找几封推荐信，重新组织一下材料，重新包
装一下再递 | | | j*******3
发帖数: 940 | 31 不过我觉得版上90%的1b都是claim三样的。。
【在 d***y 的大作中提到】
: 1B只要求claim2项，就没必要画蛇添足。再找几封推荐信，重新组织一下材料，重新包
: 装一下再递
| e******u
发帖数: 1067 | 32 90%两样还差不多
【在 j*******3 的大作中提到】
: 不过我觉得版上90%的1b都是claim三样的。。
|
|
