|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
g**********r
发帖数: 159 | 1 大概背景: 小公司scientist, major: Chemistry，review 100+，总引用83（其中独立
引用80），google scholar显示引用73（其中独立引用70），
Criteria Analysis老三样过了
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 original scientific or scholarly research
contributions to the academic
field
• Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (
in scholarly journals with
international circulation) in the academic field
If the petitioner believes that the beneficiary qualifies under any of the
regulatory criteria that USClS 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没过 sob
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate that 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 ofd1e evidence, has
demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise
required for the E 12 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E
12 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary's being recognized
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the
petition.
The record shows that the beneficiary has been a prolific reviewer in his
academic field, but the
evidence does not prove that in the widespread peer-review process (a
routine process in the field relying on many scientists) his activity,
though productive, reflects sustained acclaim. Such acclaim is more commonly
associated with selection for service on an editorial board of a
prestigious, scholarly journal or chairmanship of a professional scientific
conference.
这个我打算去做一个international meeting 的chair。让组织者写support letter。
同时我让一个IF5+的主编写了个support letter. 原来想加入editorial board的。未
果。
The petitioner submitted letters of support written by experts to establish
the beneficiary's original research contributions to the academic field.
Since Dr. A is a former colleague of the beneficiary and Dr. B is former
advisor, their letters cannot be treated as independent and therefore have
much less weight. Dr. C believes that the beneficiary's "past
accomplishments justifY projections of future accomplishments" in his field;
Dr. D opines that the beneficiary's achievements are "unparalleled"; while
Dr. E writes that the beneficiary)s ''achievements ... distinguish him from
his peers." However, the beneficiary's scientifi.c or scholarly research
contributions to the academic field must be demonstrated by preexisting,
independent, and objective evidence. USCTS may in its discretion use such
letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert witnesses, but USCIS is
ultimately responsible for making the final determination of the beneficiary
's eligibility. See Matter of Caron International, 19 J&N Dec. 791, 795 (
Comm. 1988).
请问这个怎么回？
The record shows that the beneficiary has published 7 articles with
scholarly journals and presented his research results at conferences in his
field; however, a researcher's publishing is not as reliable a gauge in
determining influence on the academic field as frequent, independent
citations of his publications. Indeed, USClS considers the number of
independent citations an objective, reliable gauge in determining the
beneficiary's original contributions to the academic field. Publishing alone
may serve as evidence of originality, but it is difficult to determine the
published work's importance or influence if there is little or no evidence
that other researchers have relied on the beneficiary's findings.
请问这个怎么回？
Although the evidence of record shows that the beneficiary meets the plain
language of 3 regulatory criteria, he is only strong in criterion D;
moreover, the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary's original
research has contributed significantly to the field as a whole. The
petitioner has proven that the beneficiary is a promising and highly-
regarded researcher, having earned the respect of his collaborators and
employer while securing some degree of international exposure for his work;
yet the record stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of one
who is recognized internationally as outstanding in the academic field.
请问这个怎么回？
这个D是review。
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) of the INA.
Pursuant to section 291 of the INA, whenever any person makes an application
for an immigration benefit, he 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. | t*********r
发帖数: 4143 | | x****y
发帖数: 1602 | | f******n
发帖数: 640 | | v******6
发帖数: 7081 | | w********r
发帖数: 739 | 6 粗略看了下,感觉是你的推荐信的问题.几点建议:
1.避免容易招致质疑的词语,比如future等等,少用泛泛性的吹嘘(如直接评价你的词语)
,多写具体的成果.
2.要找人写他们如何应用你的研究成果的.
3.你的文章也被质疑,这一点可以挖掘你发表的journal的排名,说他们是top多少,证明
你的outstanding.
【在 g**********r 的大作中提到】
: 大概背景: 小公司scientist, major: Chemistry，review 100+，总引用83（其中独立
: 引用80），google scholar显示引用73（其中独立引用70），
: Criteria Analysis老三样过了
: 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 original scientific or scholarly research
| w******n
发帖数: 13202 | 7 推荐信不是独立推荐人，是毫无意义的。
推荐人没有指出你的研究内容的对他们的具体影响，具体作用。
引用上没有具体的陈述，从而导致无法判断文章本身的影响力。
你需要深度挖掘别人对你文章的引用，描述你答研究对他们的具体使用实际效果。要具
体!
【在 g**********r 的大作中提到】
: 大概背景: 小公司scientist, major: Chemistry，review 100+，总引用83（其中独立
: 引用80），google scholar显示引用73（其中独立引用70），
: Criteria Analysis老三样过了
: 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 original scientific or scholarly research
| L**A
发帖数: 425 | 8 老三样都过了，怎么还这样？？
【在 g**********r 的大作中提到】
: 大概背景: 小公司scientist, major: Chemistry，review 100+，总引用83（其中独立
: 引用80），google scholar显示引用73（其中独立引用70），
: Criteria Analysis老三样过了
: 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 original scientific or scholarly research
| b******n
发帖数: 2114 | | a****c
发帖数: 121 | 10 bless，强烈建议挖掘citation，看看有什么别人的应用。
最近也在纠结回复NOID的推荐信，说具体别人怎么base on 你的research去实现他们的
work，但是其实就是一个脚标，或者说你的不足，然后怎么改进。。。。很少有那种直
接应用的引用。。。。头疼不知道怎么写。 | | | o*s
发帖数: 623 | 11 这种事情真是罕见呀
建议抓期刊的级别高（如果是的话）和成果的应用（被他人研究采用或实际应用产出）
两个方向突出你的研究的意义
你的review太多（相比你自己的文章数量） 给IO感觉像是日常工作 突出一下
reviewer的选择标准 | j***a
发帖数: 1734 | | l*****i
发帖数: 413 | | a**t
发帖数: 2018 | | g**********r
发帖数: 159 | 15 update一下
昨天律师寄出去response to NOID
今天收到denial了
求教下一步应该motion，appeal，还是refile？ | c*****a
发帖数: 845 | 16 自己整理一下，重新寄出去，别找律师了。我觉得第二次申请通过的概率都挺高的。
【在 g**********r 的大作中提到】
: update一下
: 昨天律师寄出去response to NOID
: 今天收到denial了
: 求教下一步应该motion，appeal，还是refile？
| a****c
发帖数: 121 | 17 这么快就收到denial？会不会是材料没收到啊？有收到材料收到的message吗？ | p********r
发帖数: 3243 | | g*****a
发帖数: 1692 | 19 这速度是秒据阿，搭车问一下，denial的情况下即使appeal,是不是EAD/AP一样已经失
效了
【在 g**********r 的大作中提到】
: update一下
: 昨天律师寄出去response to NOID
: 今天收到denial了
: 求教下一步应该motion，appeal，还是refile？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
