由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
Immigration版 - 吐血 EB1A 追加PP第七天被NOID, 求大家支招!!!!
相关主题
跪求版上大牛们帮忙 TSC Eb1A 140 PP 刚收到RFEEB1a RFE officer # XM0168
求助!TSC EB1A+PP NOIDNOID Response 要点总结
准备REF问题:审稿能证明sustained international acclaim?补充材料邮出 回答NOID 求Bless
NSP EB1A PP 收到 NOID 0002140 RFE里面的一句话
令人堵心的正月十五:EB1A non-pp TSC NOID 求助EB1A NOID--请大家看看还有救没?
非常郁闷收到NOI D,EBIA,大家建议如何回复求助: intends to deny, eb1a NSC
I140 approved after NOID by IO0106NSC NOID response交了, 求祝福
继续关于TX211(director in TX)的NOIDEb1a DIY pp NSC intend to deny , 求建议
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: petitioner话题: evidence话题: field话题: his话题: citation
进入Immigration版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
h**********7
发帖数: 218
1
IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
, contribution
文章13(IF 2-13)
Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
引用:递交时240+
推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但
totality不够,NOID notice很长,批判的点比较多,我看不出IO真正关注的是哪一点
或者是每条都不放过,我总结了要点如下,也把原文附在文后了。
Review:
1. 仅有审稿的客观证据不足以证明sustained national or international
acclaim
2. 审稿次数被律师搞错了!
3. 不能证明比其他领域中的researcher审稿多,尤其和editors-in-chief比较
4. 审稿人审的杂志的水平不能说明审稿人的水品(因为有claim杂志IF和排名)
5. 审稿的证据不能证明别人rely on我的judgement
Contribution:
1. 开会是researcher经常做的,会议presentation没有被cite,impact仅限于参与会
议的人。
2. Citation数据不能证明和领域其他expert比是widely cited
3. 推荐信不能作为主要证据
Authorship:
1. Citation数据不能证明small percentage
2. 参加会议不能说明very top,不是keynote speaker或the conference was
solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner
3. 发文章是Researcher的本职工作
4. Citation太少,不能体现top
以下是我PL里除了推荐信以外的客观证据
1. paper的IF,排名 (数字都在1%-10%)
2. citation和同年发表同领域发表文章的比较(0.1%-10%)
3. 提到cite我文章的几个世界牛校
4. Google scholar search的ranking,有文章用特殊关键词搜排第二
5. Review文章数,杂志数,杂志IF排名
6. 两个独立推荐人提出自己的工作是基于我的工作
我参考板上讨论,以下是觉得可以追加的材料和一些疑问,恳求大家的建议和补充
1. 找editors要review的supporting letter。review方面除了这个我真想不出其他招
了,但IO有要求objective evidence, 怎么说明review比其他人多呢。
2. 看起来citation不能只和同领域的其他文章比,还要和其他同行专家比,但这要比
就完败了吧,citation数据还有什么好的比较方法?
3. Citation的国别,学校可以统计一下,做个油灯图。原来PL这一点是飘过的
4. 我知道要挖citation中的亮点,但是大多数citation都是在Introduction里带过,
真的挖不出什么来了。这也是PL里没有写citation细节。
5. 推荐人中其实有三个人cite过我的文章并在推荐信中提到了,感觉IO没怎么看推荐
信,还需要大量补推荐信么
6. 审稿次数被律师搞错了,26次PL里写了33。我现在还不清楚原因,这个问题很严重
么,这一点要怎么答复。
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received a one-
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized prize or award.
As a result, the evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiaiy has
fulfilled at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations.
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 a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought;
* Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related
contributions of major significance in the field; and
*Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major
trade publications or other major media.
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has
met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial 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 El 1 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the El
I immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing;
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
*In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained"
national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A
beneficiary may have achieved
extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a comparable
level of acclaim
thereafter; and,
*Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Firstly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate that he has
participated, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought. This evidence primarily consists of email
correspondence between the petitioner and various journals for which he
performed peer reviews. While this evidence does meet the plain language of
this criterion, it is insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is
one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and
that he has sustained national or international acclaim.
In the letter submitted by counsel, it states that the journals in which the
petitioner has conducted peer reviews "...enlist the services of only the
most accomplished researchers." Despite this claim, evidence was not
submitted from each of the journals in which the petitioner conducted peer
reviews to demonstrate this. The assertions of counsel do not constitute
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena. 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980).
Additionally, the evidence submitted demonstrates that the petitioner has
conducted peer reviews for XXX. XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX,XXX, and XXX. The letter
submitted by counsel states that the
petitioner has reviewed 31 manuscripts; however, based on the evidence
submitted it appears that the petitioner has reviewed 26 manuscripts (some
copies of the emails provided were for the same article). This information
is insufficient without independent and objective evidence demonstrating
that this number of peer reviews is significantly higher than that of others
who are considered experts in the same or an allied field of specialization
for which classification is sought,
While peer reviewers perform a necessary and vital function, the evidence
does not establish that it is a role which indicates international
recognition as outstanding in the academic field for the reviewer,
especially when compared to editors-in-chief of respected journals. The
evidence shows that the petitioner has been asked to review multiple
articles. This evidence does not, however, show that the petitioner has been
asked to review articles more frequently than other researchers in his
field, or that the requests are based on him being outstanding. USCIS will
not presume the significance of the petitioner's reviewing based on the
journal(s) he reviewed for, and the petitioner must demonstrate the
significance of his role in the review process. In addition, the evidence
submitted that the petitioner has performed as a reviewer does not indicate
that his expertise is widely or frequently relied upon as a judge of his
peers,
Secondly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his original
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions
of major significance in the field. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner's participation in conferences,
six letters of recommendation, and copies of the published articles in which
the petitioner co-authored with information concerning the journals in
which they were published. While the petitioner has met the plain language
of this criterion, the totality of the evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field and that he has sustained national or
international acclaim.
Evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the petitioner has presented
his research findings at national meetings and conferences. Many
professional fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work
, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These
conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations,
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. There is no
documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's conference
presentations are frequently cited by other scientists, have significantly
impacted the field, or otherwise rise to the level of showing that the
beneficiary is considered extraordinary in the field. While the presentation
of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with
others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the
selection of them to be presented, the presentations of the petitioner’s
work at various venues are not sufficient evidence in establishing that his
work is not limited to the engagement in which his work was presented. The
petitioner failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence of his
presentations beyond the audience at the conferences,
USCIS acknowledges that the petitioner has published useful research as
demonstrated by some of the journals in which his articles were published,
as well as the number of citations listed for some of the articles for the
year in which they were published. However, this evidence does not
demonstrate that the petitioner's work has provoked widespread public
commentary or has been widely cited in comparison to others who are
considered experts in the same field. The petitioner's field, like most
scientific fields, is research-driven and generally result in the
publication of one's research in peer-reviewed journals. While the
petitioner's research clearly has practical applications, it can be argued
that any published article, in order to be accepted or published, must offer
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge.
Letters of recommendation written by experts may be helpful; however, the
major significance of the petitioner’s work must be demonstrated by
preexisting, independent, and objective evidence. While such letters are
important in providing details about the petitioner's work and/or research,
they cannot by themselves establish that the petitioner’s contributions to
the field have far-reaching implications or that the petitioner has
sustained national or international acclaim, Letters of support alone
generally may not be sufficient and, though not without weight, cannot form
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in
its discretion, use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final
determination of the alien’s eligibility [Matter of Caron International, 19
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr.1988)]. The evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field or that he has sustained national or
international acclaim,
Lastly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his authorship
of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade
publications or other major media. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner’s participation in conferences,
information concerning the journals in which the petitioner's work has been
published, and evidence of citations of the petitioner's work. While this
evidence does meet the plain language of this criterion, they are
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim.
USCIS acknowledges through the evidence submitted that the petitioner has
participated in various national conferences, has co-authored articles that
have been published in journals within the same field, and has had his work
cited by others within the same field. However, this evidence is
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim. The information provided
concerning the petitioner's participation in conferences is not indicative
of demonstrating that he has risen to the very top of his field as it does
not appear that he was a keynote speaker, or that the conference was solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner.
At the time of filing the instant petition, it appears that the petitioner
had co-authored 13 articles and abstracts that had been published in
scholarly journals. USCIS notes that researchers are generally expected to
publish their research results. The Association of American Universities'
Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a
postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition was
the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatoty for a
full-time academic and/or research career,'' and that “the appointee has
the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research
or scholarship during the period of the appointment.” Thus, this national
organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected,” even
among researchers who have not yet begun “a full-time academic and/or
research career.”
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had,
the very act of publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation
history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of
originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is
important or influential if there is little or no evidence that other
researchers have relied upon the petitioner’s findings. Frequent citation
by independent researchers, on the other hand, would demonstrate more
widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. The evidence
of record shows the petitioner's works have been cited minimally and that
his citation record is not sufficient to establish the outstanding nature of
the petitioner's publications. While the evidence presented may indicate a
degree of interest in the petitioner’s work, the petitioner has not shown
that his articles have an unusual level of interest as to distinguish him as
extraordinary in his field especially in comparison to known experts in the
field. Overall, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the
petitioner’s work has advanced the field as a whole and has set him apart
from other experts in the field.
l*******e
发帖数: 1022
2
这么强的case 都。。。。。
b*****d
发帖数: 7166
3
bless~~
证明两点,1.推荐信没啥用,因为都知道是律师或自己写然后推荐人签字,而且每个人
的推荐信都大同小异,看腻了。
2. 引用数不能满足IO了,要干货。
f**2
发帖数: 340
4
你这律师也太那个马虎了吧。还是楼主自己上心点准备材料吧。祝好运

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

p********r
发帖数: 3243
5
对于初次递交,推荐信几乎就是一切。
论述贡献不能只做表面文章、迷信数据分析,那是打败不了阿姨哦的。
c*****m
发帖数: 4817
6
看的我好怕
d*****n
发帖数: 3033
7
我靠,这么强的都能搞回来。。。

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

z*****a
发帖数: 7716
8
祝福!
好好研究下回复,版上有几位大神的

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

r*****n
发帖数: 753
9
感觉律师太不负责任了
b*****d
发帖数: 7166
10
感觉律师完全就是套用了模板,审稿次数不是他算错了,是copy模板忘了改了。跟我的
律师一样,讨论我贡献的部分赫然有一段是别人的论文:)
相关主题
非常郁闷收到NOI D,EBIA,大家建议如何回复EB1a RFE officer # XM0168
I140 approved after NOID by IO0106NOID Response 要点总结
继续关于TX211(director in TX)的NOID补充材料邮出 回答NOID 求Bless
进入Immigration版参与讨论
m******e
发帖数: 88
11
这狗屁律师啊 曝光

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

s**********e
发帖数: 723
12
bless
哎,好怕

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

s*****b
发帖数: 662
13
建议换律师准备rfe
这个时候多花点钱找个靠谱的律师比啥都重要
s*****b
发帖数: 662
14
你是noid,不是板上同志常遇到的rfe。
我们大部分人都没有respond noid的经验,最多是搞搞rfe。
你要慎重
p********r
发帖数: 3243
15
除了回复期限长短不一样,没什么区别。

【在 s*****b 的大作中提到】
: 你是noid,不是板上同志常遇到的rfe。
: 我们大部分人都没有respond noid的经验,最多是搞搞rfe。
: 你要慎重

b*********g
发帖数: 951
16
同被NOI(R)的安慰下楼主,好好准备吧,尤其贡献这块。
c*****k
发帖数: 112
17
你引用足够了 要深挖 然后一定要放在pl里吹
s******y
发帖数: 17729
18
这个感觉是诚心找茬啊,不应该的

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

s******y
发帖数: 17729
19
感觉是驴师只顾数钱了,没好好干活,模板套的太不认真,材料组织太水

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

p********r
发帖数: 3243
20
还材料组织呢,压根就没有料。
相关主题
140 RFE里面的一句话NSC NOID response交了, 求祝福
EB1A NOID--请大家看看还有救没?Eb1a DIY pp NSC intend to deny , 求建议
求助: intends to deny, eb1a NSCReview被RFE,大家有没有类似的经验,经历?
进入Immigration版参与讨论
t*********r
发帖数: 4143
21
律师把关键数据都弄错了,简直就是拖后腿啊
z***x
发帖数: 155
22
这个IO有点变态阿. 律师再烂,你的case还是很强的,数据说话.前几天看到版上有个跟
你类似,不过他的律师不错,直接给他免费重新报了后通过. 感觉你的IO也是不会放过你
了,你是在哪个中心审的?
z***x
发帖数: 155
23
这个IO有点变态阿. 律师再烂,你的case还是很强的,数据说话.前几天看到版上有个跟
你类似,不过他的律师不错,直接给他免费重新报了后通过. 感觉你的IO也是不会放过你
了,你是在哪个中心审的?
g***c
发帖数: 11523
24
估计lz自己也以为躺过
lz自己没检查材料?居然没看出来律师吧次数搞错了?
这么强的case居然NOID了
cmft

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

r*********0
发帖数: 99
25
Bless
r**u
发帖数: 1567
26
这个IO也够认真,竟然一个一个数提供了多少个review的证据。

【在 g***c 的大作中提到】
: 估计lz自己也以为躺过
: lz自己没检查材料?居然没看出来律师吧次数搞错了?
: 这么强的case居然NOID了
: cmft
:
: reviewing

p********r
发帖数: 3243
27
他只是执行了移民局的标准执法尺度.........

【在 r**u 的大作中提到】
: 这个IO也够认真,竟然一个一个数提供了多少个review的证据。
x***5
发帖数: 1032
28
感觉你的case比我还强啊
只能祝福了!
o****g
发帖数: 1873
29
先不说你的数据材料准备的档次,如个你的材料里面出现不一致(审稿次数)。这个很不
好,当初我找HLS的人帮我看材料的时候,他虽然不做移民这块,他明确告诉我,政府
对和法律相关的文件/申请材料的一致性/准确性的要求很高,包括语法错误(影响准确
性)。个人经验
名媛都说过了,如果阿姨都觉得你材料准备不认真,初始印象就定了,即使你case很强
w******n
发帖数: 13202
30
被律师毁掉了。再好好组织材料吧。记得证据详实,论证清晰。不要任何主观词句---
就是说任何没有证据支持的语句,都去掉。
相关主题
140 NOID后通过,罗哩罗嗦个人经历和一点经验求助!TSC EB1A+PP NOID
EB1A是不是要求申请人一直在发paper?准备REF问题:审稿能证明sustained international acclaim?
跪求版上大牛们帮忙 TSC Eb1A 140 PP 刚收到RFENSP EB1A PP 收到 NOID 0002
进入Immigration版参与讨论
p********r
发帖数: 3243
31
狮子头说得没错。
成堆的事实一再证明,只要阿姨哦执法尺度正常一点点,那些指望水过的就过不了了。
大家一定要自己用心才行。狠下工夫,案子都是自己做强的。
申请周期那么长,大家不要去碰运气、指望阿姨哦放水。

【在 w******n 的大作中提到】
: 被律师毁掉了。再好好组织材料吧。记得证据详实,论证清晰。不要任何主观词句---
: 就是说任何没有证据支持的语句,都去掉。

b*********1
发帖数: 103
32
your case is strong. but it was handled by a biased officer. If you can not
show extra strong evidences in your reply, and just re-orginaze materials,
you may not change the office's decision. PUMA had given you very good
suggestions. Good luck.
p********r
发帖数: 3243
33
OFFICER完全没问题。不是阿姨哦的事。

not

【在 b*********1 的大作中提到】
: your case is strong. but it was handled by a biased officer. If you can not
: show extra strong evidences in your reply, and just re-orginaze materials,
: you may not change the office's decision. PUMA had given you very good
: suggestions. Good luck.

o***o
发帖数: 18
34
这移民官感觉是新的 lz运气不好遇到最近新请的那批吧
感觉就是看你的case不爽 建议withdraw重送吧
case很强 信如果也没什麽大问题
重送遇别的移民官很快就过了
除非你想denial後上诉AAO才能够惩罚到这种不负责任的移民官
他们移民官要被上诉了才会怕不然乱审跟本不会影响到他们的考绩
p********r
发帖数: 3243
35
尺度完全正常,不是移民官的事。
水过不常有,大家要努力。

【在 o***o 的大作中提到】
: 这移民官感觉是新的 lz运气不好遇到最近新请的那批吧
: 感觉就是看你的case不爽 建议withdraw重送吧
: case很强 信如果也没什麽大问题
: 重送遇别的移民官很快就过了
: 除非你想denial後上诉AAO才能够惩罚到这种不负责任的移民官
: 他们移民官要被上诉了才会怕不然乱审跟本不会影响到他们的考绩

d*****8
发帖数: 369
36
严重同意名媛的建议。引用数目都是相对,你200度引用不能直接说明你case很强,没
有挖掘别人具体怎么应用你的工作,突出贡献,再怎么翻来覆去比较百分比,多少个国
家单位牛人引用都是浮云。。。这些只能是锦上添花的作用。
建议你好好答复NOID,多找出一些亮点来具体讨论你的贡献。版上已经有很多答复NOID
后通过的案例,你用了PP,应该很快给你消息,也不损失什么。
h**********7
发帖数: 218
37
上来和大家通报一声,真心感谢大家的建议和帮助!(可惜包子之前发光了)
加了四封推荐信(都是引用过文章的人),要了几封editor的信证明是领域top的人才
能被邀请审稿,
最主要的还是要挖料挖料挖料(之前不上心 惨痛教训啊筒子们),然后要在推荐信中
体现, 另外最后决定的回信策略是相当于重写了一遍PL, 而没有针对io逐条反驳(因
为可能就是个模版io拿来贴一下吧)
感觉这个0201还算比较公正,也有可能holiday season了,心情比较好^_^
以上希望可以给大家一些回复noid的参考信息,由于一些原因,更详细内容就不方便写
了,有问题欢迎私信询问!
顺便求485的bless~~~~~
==============
IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
, contribution
文章13(IF 2-13)
Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
引用:递交时240+
推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但
totality不够,NOID notice很长,批判的点比较多,我看不出IO真正关注的是哪一点
或者是每条都不放过,我总结了要点如下,也把原文附在文后了。
Review:
1. 仅有审稿的客观证据不足以证明sustained national or international
acclaim
2. 审稿次数被律师搞错了!
3. 不能证明比其他领域中的researcher审稿多,尤其和editors-in-chief比较
4. 审稿人审的杂志的水平不能说明审稿人的水品(因为有claim杂志IF和排名)
5. 审稿的证据不能证明别人rely on我的judgement
Contribution:
1. 开会是researcher经常做的,会议presentation没有被cite,impact仅限于参与会
议的人。
2. Citation数据不能证明和领域其他expert比是widely cited
3. 推荐信不能作为主要证据
Authorship:
1. Citation数据不能证明small percentage
2. 参加会议不能说明very top,不是keynote speaker或the conference was
solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner
3. 发文章是Researcher的本职工作
4. Citation太少,不能体现top
以下是我PL里除了推荐信以外的客观证据
1. paper的IF,排名 (数字都在1%-10%)
2. citation和同年发表同领域发表文章的比较(0.1%-10%)
3. 提到cite我文章的几个世界牛校
4. Google scholar search的ranking,有文章用特殊关键词搜排第二
5. Review文章数,杂志数,杂志IF排名
6. 两个独立推荐人提出自己的工作是基于我的工作
我参考板上讨论,以下是觉得可以追加的材料和一些疑问,恳求大家的建议和补充
1. 找editors要review的supporting letter。review方面除了这个我真想不出其他招
了,但IO有要求objective evidence, 怎么说明review比其他人多呢。
2. 看起来citation不能只和同领域的其他文章比,还要和其他同行专家比,但这要比
就完败了吧,citation数据还有什么好的比较方法?
3. Citation的国别,学校可以统计一下,做个油灯图。原来PL这一点是飘过的
4. 我知道要挖citation中的亮点,但是大多数citation都是在Introduction里带过,
真的挖不出什么来了。这也是PL里没有写citation细节。
5. 推荐人中其实有三个人cite过我的文章并在推荐信中提到了,感觉IO没怎么看推荐
信,还需要大量补推荐信么
6. 审稿次数被律师搞错了,26次PL里写了33。我现在还不清楚原因,这个问题很严重
么,这一点要怎么答复。
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received a one-
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized prize or award.
As a result, the evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiaiy has
fulfilled at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations.
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 a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought;
* Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic,
athletic, or business-related
contributions of major significance in the field; and
*Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professional or major
trade publications or other major media.
As the petitioner has submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has
met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial 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 El 1 immigrant classification.
Establishing eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the El
I immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing;
* Sustained national or international acclaim.
*In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained"
national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A
beneficiary may have achieved
extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a comparable
level of acclaim
thereafter; and,
*Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Firstly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate that he has
participated, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of
others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classification is sought. This evidence primarily consists of email
correspondence between the petitioner and various journals for which he
performed peer reviews. While this evidence does meet the plain language of
this criterion, it is insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is
one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and
that he has sustained national or international acclaim.
In the letter submitted by counsel, it states that the journals in which the
petitioner has conducted peer reviews "...enlist the services of only the
most accomplished researchers." Despite this claim, evidence was not
submitted from each of the journals in which the petitioner conducted peer
reviews to demonstrate this. The assertions of counsel do not constitute
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena. 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980).
Additionally, the evidence submitted demonstrates that the petitioner has
conducted peer reviews for XXX. XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX,XXX, and XXX. The letter
submitted by counsel states that the
petitioner has reviewed 31 manuscripts; however, based on the evidence
submitted it appears that the petitioner has reviewed 26 manuscripts (some
copies of the emails provided were for the same article). This information
is insufficient without independent and objective evidence demonstrating
that this number of peer reviews is significantly higher than that of others
who are considered experts in the same or an allied field of specialization
for which classification is sought,
While peer reviewers perform a necessary and vital function, the evidence
does not establish that it is a role which indicates international
recognition as outstanding in the academic field for the reviewer,
especially when compared to editors-in-chief of respected journals. The
evidence shows that the petitioner has been asked to review multiple
articles. This evidence does not, however, show that the petitioner has been
asked to review articles more frequently than other researchers in his
field, or that the requests are based on him being outstanding. USCIS will
not presume the significance of the petitioner's reviewing based on the
journal(s) he reviewed for, and the petitioner must demonstrate the
significance of his role in the review process. In addition, the evidence
submitted that the petitioner has performed as a reviewer does not indicate
that his expertise is widely or frequently relied upon as a judge of his
peers,
Secondly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his original
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions
of major significance in the field. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner's participation in conferences,
six letters of recommendation, and copies of the published articles in which
the petitioner co-authored with information concerning the journals in
which they were published. While the petitioner has met the plain language
of this criterion, the totality of the evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field and that he has sustained national or
international acclaim.
Evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the petitioner has presented
his research findings at national meetings and conferences. Many
professional fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work
, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These
conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations,
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. There is no
documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's conference
presentations are frequently cited by other scientists, have significantly
impacted the field, or otherwise rise to the level of showing that the
beneficiary is considered extraordinary in the field. While the presentation
of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with
others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the
selection of them to be presented, the presentations of the petitioner’s
work at various venues are not sufficient evidence in establishing that his
work is not limited to the engagement in which his work was presented. The
petitioner failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence of his
presentations beyond the audience at the conferences,
USCIS acknowledges that the petitioner has published useful research as
demonstrated by some of the journals in which his articles were published,
as well as the number of citations listed for some of the articles for the
year in which they were published. However, this evidence does not
demonstrate that the petitioner's work has provoked widespread public
commentary or has been widely cited in comparison to others who are
considered experts in the same field. The petitioner's field, like most
scientific fields, is research-driven and generally result in the
publication of one's research in peer-reviewed journals. While the
petitioner's research clearly has practical applications, it can be argued
that any published article, in order to be accepted or published, must offer
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge.
Letters of recommendation written by experts may be helpful; however, the
major significance of the petitioner’s work must be demonstrated by
preexisting, independent, and objective evidence. While such letters are
important in providing details about the petitioner's work and/or research,
they cannot by themselves establish that the petitioner’s contributions to
the field have far-reaching implications or that the petitioner has
sustained national or international acclaim, Letters of support alone
generally may not be sufficient and, though not without weight, cannot form
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in
its discretion, use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert
witnesses. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final
determination of the alien’s eligibility [Matter of Caron International, 19
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr.1988)]. The evidence provided is insufficient in
demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who has
risen to the very top of his field or that he has sustained national or
international acclaim,
Lastly, the petitioner has provided evidence to demonstrate his authorship
of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade
publications or other major media. The evidence submitted to demonstrate
this consists of evidence of the petitioner’s participation in conferences,
information concerning the journals in which the petitioner's work has been
published, and evidence of citations of the petitioner's work. While this
evidence does meet the plain language of this criterion, they are
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim.
USCIS acknowledges through the evidence submitted that the petitioner has
participated in various national conferences, has co-authored articles that
have been published in journals within the same field, and has had his work
cited by others within the same field. However, this evidence is
insufficient in demonstrating that the petitioner is one of that small
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field and that he has
sustained national or international acclaim. The information provided
concerning the petitioner's participation in conferences is not indicative
of demonstrating that he has risen to the very top of his field as it does
not appear that he was a keynote speaker, or that the conference was solely
in response to the research performed by the petitioner.
At the time of filing the instant petition, it appears that the petitioner
had co-authored 13 articles and abstracts that had been published in
scholarly journals. USCIS notes that researchers are generally expected to
publish their research results. The Association of American Universities'
Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a
postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition was
the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatoty for a
full-time academic and/or research career,'' and that “the appointee has
the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research
or scholarship during the period of the appointment.” Thus, this national
organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected,” even
among researchers who have not yet begun “a full-time academic and/or
research career.”
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had,
the very act of publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation
history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of
originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is
important or influential if there is little or no evidence that other
researchers have relied upon the petitioner’s findings. Frequent citation
by independent researchers, on the other hand, would demonstrate more
widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. The evidence
of record shows the petitioner's works have been cited minimally and that
his citation record is not sufficient to establish the outstanding nature of
the petitioner's publications. While the evidence presented may indicate a
degree of interest in the petitioner’s work, the petitioner has not shown
that his articles have an unusual level of interest as to distinguish him as
extraordinary in his field especially in comparison to known experts in the
field. Overall, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the
petitioner’s work has advanced the field as a whole and has set him apart
from other experts in the field.
l*******e
发帖数: 1022
38
这么强的case 都。。。。。
b*****d
发帖数: 7166
39
bless~~
证明两点,1.推荐信没啥用,因为都知道是律师或自己写然后推荐人签字,而且每个人
的推荐信都大同小异,看腻了。
2. 引用数不能满足IO了,要干货。
f**2
发帖数: 340
40
你这律师也太那个马虎了吧。还是楼主自己上心点准备材料吧。祝好运

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

相关主题
NSP EB1A PP 收到 NOID 0002I140 approved after NOID by IO0106
令人堵心的正月十五:EB1A non-pp TSC NOID 求助继续关于TX211(director in TX)的NOID
非常郁闷收到NOI D,EBIA,大家建议如何回复EB1a RFE officer # XM0168
进入Immigration版参与讨论
p********r
发帖数: 3243
41
对于初次递交,推荐信几乎就是一切。
论述贡献不能只做表面文章、迷信数据分析,那是打败不了阿姨哦的。
c*****m
发帖数: 4817
42
看的我好怕
d*****n
发帖数: 3033
43
我靠,这么强的都能搞回来。。。

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

z*****a
发帖数: 7716
44
祝福!
好好研究下回复,版上有几位大神的

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

r*****n
发帖数: 753
45
感觉律师太不负责任了
b*****d
发帖数: 7166
46
感觉律师完全就是套用了模板,审稿次数不是他算错了,是copy模板忘了改了。跟我的
律师一样,讨论我贡献的部分赫然有一段是别人的论文:)
m******e
发帖数: 88
47
这狗屁律师啊 曝光

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

s**********e
发帖数: 723
48
bless
哎,好怕

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

s*****b
发帖数: 662
49
建议换律师准备rfe
这个时候多花点钱找个靠谱的律师比啥都重要
s*****b
发帖数: 662
50
你是noid,不是板上同志常遇到的rfe。
我们大部分人都没有respond noid的经验,最多是搞搞rfe。
你要慎重
相关主题
NOID Response 要点总结EB1A NOID--请大家看看还有救没?
补充材料邮出 回答NOID 求Bless求助: intends to deny, eb1a NSC
140 RFE里面的一句话NSC NOID response交了, 求祝福
进入Immigration版参与讨论
p********r
发帖数: 3243
51
除了回复期限长短不一样,没什么区别。

【在 s*****b 的大作中提到】
: 你是noid,不是板上同志常遇到的rfe。
: 我们大部分人都没有respond noid的经验,最多是搞搞rfe。
: 你要慎重

b*********g
发帖数: 951
52
同被NOI(R)的安慰下楼主,好好准备吧,尤其贡献这块。
c*****k
发帖数: 112
53
你引用足够了 要深挖 然后一定要放在pl里吹
s******y
发帖数: 17729
54
这个感觉是诚心找茬啊,不应该的

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

s******y
发帖数: 17729
55
感觉是驴师只顾数钱了,没好好干活,模板套的太不认真,材料组织太水

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

p********r
发帖数: 3243
56
还材料组织呢,压根就没有料。
t*********r
发帖数: 4143
57
律师把关键数据都弄错了,简直就是拖后腿啊
z***x
发帖数: 155
58
这个IO有点变态阿. 律师再烂,你的case还是很强的,数据说话.前几天看到版上有个跟
你类似,不过他的律师不错,直接给他免费重新报了后通过. 感觉你的IO也是不会放过你
了,你是在哪个中心审的?
z***x
发帖数: 155
59
这个IO有点变态阿. 律师再烂,你的case还是很强的,数据说话.前几天看到版上有个跟
你类似,不过他的律师不错,直接给他免费重新报了后通过. 感觉你的IO也是不会放过你
了,你是在哪个中心审的?
g***c
发帖数: 11523
60
估计lz自己也以为躺过
lz自己没检查材料?居然没看出来律师吧次数搞错了?
这么强的case居然NOID了
cmft

reviewing

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: IO是NSC的0201, 看到版上之前也有一个人被他NOID了,回复内容类似,不知道这人算
: 不算杀手?有人在他手上approve过吗?
: 呼唤版上各位大神,求分析,求拍醒!
: 基本情况如下;电子方向博士,现在科技公司做研发,claim了authorship, reviewing
: , contribution
: 文章13(IF 2-13)
: Review: 26 (7 journals)没有太好的杂志 (IF 2-4)
: 引用:递交时240+
: 推荐信:6封,4 independent,一欧洲,一澳大利大,四美国
: 找了律师,先提交eb1a然后追加pp,一周后收到NOID。IO判断单项满足标准,但

相关主题
Eb1a DIY pp NSC intend to deny , 求建议EB1A是不是要求申请人一直在发paper?
Review被RFE,大家有没有类似的经验,经历?跪求版上大牛们帮忙 TSC Eb1A 140 PP 刚收到RFE
140 NOID后通过,罗哩罗嗦个人经历和一点经验求助!TSC EB1A+PP NOID
进入Immigration版参与讨论
r*********0
发帖数: 99
61
Bless
r**u
发帖数: 1567
62
这个IO也够认真,竟然一个一个数提供了多少个review的证据。

【在 g***c 的大作中提到】
: 估计lz自己也以为躺过
: lz自己没检查材料?居然没看出来律师吧次数搞错了?
: 这么强的case居然NOID了
: cmft
:
: reviewing

p********r
发帖数: 3243
63
他只是执行了移民局的标准执法尺度.........

【在 r**u 的大作中提到】
: 这个IO也够认真,竟然一个一个数提供了多少个review的证据。
x***5
发帖数: 1032
64
感觉你的case比我还强啊
只能祝福了!
o****g
发帖数: 1873
65
先不说你的数据材料准备的档次,如个你的材料里面出现不一致(审稿次数)。这个很不
好,当初我找HLS的人帮我看材料的时候,他虽然不做移民这块,他明确告诉我,政府
对和法律相关的文件/申请材料的一致性/准确性的要求很高,包括语法错误(影响准确
性)。个人经验
名媛都说过了,如果阿姨都觉得你材料准备不认真,初始印象就定了,即使你case很强
w******n
发帖数: 13202
66
被律师毁掉了。再好好组织材料吧。记得证据详实,论证清晰。不要任何主观词句---
就是说任何没有证据支持的语句,都去掉。
p********r
发帖数: 3243
67
狮子头说得没错。
成堆的事实一再证明,只要阿姨哦执法尺度正常一点点,那些指望水过的就过不了了。
大家一定要自己用心才行。狠下工夫,案子都是自己做强的。
申请周期那么长,大家不要去碰运气、指望阿姨哦放水。

【在 w******n 的大作中提到】
: 被律师毁掉了。再好好组织材料吧。记得证据详实,论证清晰。不要任何主观词句---
: 就是说任何没有证据支持的语句,都去掉。

b*********1
发帖数: 103
68
your case is strong. but it was handled by a biased officer. If you can not
show extra strong evidences in your reply, and just re-orginaze materials,
you may not change the office's decision. PUMA had given you very good
suggestions. Good luck.
p********r
发帖数: 3243
69
OFFICER完全没问题。不是阿姨哦的事。

not

【在 b*********1 的大作中提到】
: your case is strong. but it was handled by a biased officer. If you can not
: show extra strong evidences in your reply, and just re-orginaze materials,
: you may not change the office's decision. PUMA had given you very good
: suggestions. Good luck.

o***o
发帖数: 18
70
这移民官感觉是新的 lz运气不好遇到最近新请的那批吧
感觉就是看你的case不爽 建议withdraw重送吧
case很强 信如果也没什麽大问题
重送遇别的移民官很快就过了
除非你想denial後上诉AAO才能够惩罚到这种不负责任的移民官
他们移民官要被上诉了才会怕不然乱审跟本不会影响到他们的考绩
相关主题
求助!TSC EB1A+PP NOID令人堵心的正月十五:EB1A non-pp TSC NOID 求助
准备REF问题:审稿能证明sustained international acclaim?非常郁闷收到NOI D,EBIA,大家建议如何回复
NSP EB1A PP 收到 NOID 0002I140 approved after NOID by IO0106
进入Immigration版参与讨论
p********r
发帖数: 3243
71
尺度完全正常,不是移民官的事。
水过不常有,大家要努力。

【在 o***o 的大作中提到】
: 这移民官感觉是新的 lz运气不好遇到最近新请的那批吧
: 感觉就是看你的case不爽 建议withdraw重送吧
: case很强 信如果也没什麽大问题
: 重送遇别的移民官很快就过了
: 除非你想denial後上诉AAO才能够惩罚到这种不负责任的移民官
: 他们移民官要被上诉了才会怕不然乱审跟本不会影响到他们的考绩

d*****8
发帖数: 369
72
严重同意名媛的建议。引用数目都是相对,你200度引用不能直接说明你case很强,没
有挖掘别人具体怎么应用你的工作,突出贡献,再怎么翻来覆去比较百分比,多少个国
家单位牛人引用都是浮云。。。这些只能是锦上添花的作用。
建议你好好答复NOID,多找出一些亮点来具体讨论你的贡献。版上已经有很多答复NOID
后通过的案例,你用了PP,应该很快给你消息,也不损失什么。
h**********7
发帖数: 218
73
更新 自己顶~求bless
x***5
发帖数: 1032
74
恭喜恭喜
h**********7
发帖数: 218
75
更新 自己顶~求bless
x***5
发帖数: 1032
76
恭喜恭喜
f*******r
发帖数: 5
77
请问哪里有 EB1A NOID 回信的 writing sample吗?
应该回寄到哪里去呢?
谢谢

【在 h**********7 的大作中提到】
: 上来和大家通报一声,真心感谢大家的建议和帮助!(可惜包子之前发光了)
: 加了四封推荐信(都是引用过文章的人),要了几封editor的信证明是领域top的人才
: 能被邀请审稿,
: 最主要的还是要挖料挖料挖料(之前不上心 惨痛教训啊筒子们),然后要在推荐信中
: 体现, 另外最后决定的回信策略是相当于重写了一遍PL, 而没有针对io逐条反驳(因
: 为可能就是个模版io拿来贴一下吧)
: 感觉这个0201还算比较公正,也有可能holiday season了,心情比较好^_^
: 以上希望可以给大家一些回复noid的参考信息,由于一些原因,更详细内容就不方便写
: 了,有问题欢迎私信询问!
: 顺便求485的bless~~~~~

1 (共1页)
进入Immigration版参与讨论
相关主题
Eb1a DIY pp NSC intend to deny , 求建议令人堵心的正月十五:EB1A non-pp TSC NOID 求助
Review被RFE,大家有没有类似的经验,经历?非常郁闷收到NOI D,EBIA,大家建议如何回复
140 NOID后通过,罗哩罗嗦个人经历和一点经验I140 approved after NOID by IO0106
EB1A是不是要求申请人一直在发paper?继续关于TX211(director in TX)的NOID
跪求版上大牛们帮忙 TSC Eb1A 140 PP 刚收到RFEEB1a RFE officer # XM0168
求助!TSC EB1A+PP NOIDNOID Response 要点总结
准备REF问题:审稿能证明sustained international acclaim?补充材料邮出 回答NOID 求Bless
NSP EB1A PP 收到 NOID 0002140 RFE里面的一句话
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: petitioner话题: evidence话题: field话题: his话题: citation