Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on 140 rfe, ur

NIW I-140 RFE from VSC, need respond by 9/10/06.

''We note that the letter submitted in behalf of the beneficiary appear to be predominantly written by interested parties, and while they are helpful they do not carry the same probative weight as opinions from experts and institution that are clearly independent of the beneficiary. It is clear that the authors are experts in the beneficiary's area of specialty, however these letters speak of beneficiary's accomplishment in glowing but general terms, and do not clearly delineate how the beneficiary's past accomplishment are a reasonable basis for his prospective benefit to the nation should your request for a national interest waiver be approved. In effect, the letters primarily serve to establish that the petitioner is well qualified in his area of expertise.

While the statement made are clearly complimentary, the statements from these witnesses do not persuasively show that the beneficiary has had an impact on the field to a degree that the granting of a national interest waiver would be warranted in this case. The record fails to contain any contemporaneous, corroborative documentary evidence to support the statement made. It is further noted that many of the witnesses stress the importance of the beneficiary's work rather than the significance of his past individual influence on the field.

It is generally expected that an individual whose accomplishments have gone well beyond the circle of his personal acquaintances, would have letters of recommendation from sources beyond the circle of his personal acquaintances. In other words, if the beneficiary's work is not highly praised apart from his personal and professional associates, then it's difficult to conclude that he is of national interest. Considering the extremely restrictive immigrant category being requested, it is expected that the record would include a wider range of letters.

Therefore, you are requested to submit opinions from experts and institutions that are clearly independent of the beneficiary. In addition, please submit documentation establishing evidence that the beneficiary's findings have enjoyed widespread implementation acceptance. "

My understanding: definitely need some more independent letters and re-establish the relationship between past accomplishment and NIW.

Does the rfe sound serious to your guys or it is not too bad.

Many thanks!

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on 140 r -四月花- ♀ (163 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 10:36:57

• 回複：回複：Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on -Ilovespring- ♀ (57 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 15:17:30

• 回複：Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on 140 r -popo76- ♂ (219 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 10:53:05

• 回複：回複：Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on -Ilovespring- ♀ (147 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 15:19:54

• Yes! They wrote letter in original app. -popo76- ♂ (164 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 17:51:56

• 回複：Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on 140 r -WorthIt- ♂ (698 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 12:18:13

• 回複：Xiaobaitu, fsa2000 and other gaoshou, please help on 140 r -fsa2000- ♀ (348 bytes) () 06/19/2006 postreply 20:39:57

• How many independent letters do you think we will -ilovespring- ♀ (88 bytes) () 06/20/2006 postreply 06:29:17