w*****n
发帖数: 454 | 1 我的律师在petition letter 中着重说这个是 Burden of Proof is only “
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE。
是个法律名词， 上网查查， 就是说＂提供的证据是很倾向于着个case是真的＂， 而
且是＂证据不在多而是更能说明问题＂， 看得我很雾水。 主要是以前没有听说谁的信
有这些语言。 别弄巧成拙就更郁闷了， 请懂的同学来讲讲， 虚心求教。 | G***6
发帖数: 1323 | | w*****n
发帖数: 454 | 3 呵呵， 还是挺操心， 律师在信里连名字都是错的， 弄得我更觉得他做事的态度。
另外， 我是很好奇这个term， 从来没有听说谁提到过。
【在 G***6 的大作中提到】
: 反正是律师写 您就甭操这个心啦
| w*****t
发帖数: 179 | 4 it means the level of burden is not as high as "beyond the reasonable doubt.
" Beyond the reasonable doubt standard is for criminal cases mainly. | w*****n
发帖数: 454 | 5 是的， 我在网上也看到这个。
是说， 他这么写是正常的格式话语言吧 (in the petition letter)？ 我以前在别人
的sample letter 从来没有看到过， 所以很好奇。
doubt.
【在 w*****t 的大作中提到】
: it means the level of burden is not as high as "beyond the reasonable doubt.
: " Beyond the reasonable doubt standard is for criminal cases mainly.
| o*******u
发帖数: 242 | 6 下面是从版上一个系列文章中抄的,想不起来id了,不好意思.
According to the guidance provided in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, in
reaching the preponderance of the evidence threshold, COMPANY is not
required to prove beyond any doubt that Dr. XXX is internationally
recognized as outstanding in her academic area. Instead, the Adjudicator’s
Field Manual is explicit:
The standard of proof applied in most administrative immigration proceedings
is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Thus, even if the
director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant,
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that
the claim is “probably true” or “more likely than not,” the applicant or
petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca
, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (defining “more likely than not” as a greater than
50 percent probability of something occurring). If the director can
articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either
request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe
that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition.
Exhibit XXX (Adjudicator’s Field Manual § 11.1(c)).
Consequently, COMPANY is not required to dispel all doubt concerning the
level of Dr. XXX’s recognition. COMPANY is required to show that it is “
more likely than not” that Dr. XXX is recognized internationally as
outstanding in her academic field. This, the company has done. | w*****n
发帖数: 454 | 7 多谢！
觉得美国人做事情真的是一套一套的。呵呵
’s
proceedings
relevant,
【在 o*******u 的大作中提到】
: 下面是从版上一个系列文章中抄的,想不起来id了,不好意思.
: According to the guidance provided in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, in
: reaching the preponderance of the evidence threshold, COMPANY is not
: required to prove beyond any doubt that Dr. XXX is internationally
: recognized as outstanding in her academic area. Instead, the Adjudicator’s
: Field Manual is explicit:
: The standard of proof applied in most administrative immigration proceedings
: is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Thus, even if the
: director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant,
: probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that
|
|
