去年9月NIW 140/485一起遞交到VSC，今年5月下旬被轉到NSC，9月終於收到了RFE EMAIL，今天收到RFE郵件。原文如下：
In this proceeding, the petitioner (who may also be referred to as the alien beneficiary) must show that she has met all 3 prongs set forth in this agency’s precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The evidence shows that the petitioner’s activities meet the first two prongs: substantial intrinsic merit; and national in scope. However, reference letters from the petitioner’s colleagues (some of whom also supervised her, copies of articles co-authored by the petitioner’s with those colleagues, and references to a citation of the petitioner’s work are not sufficient to show that the petitioner has a past history of demonstrable achievement with “some degree of influence on the field”. Researchers, after all, research, and for research to be useful, it must be published. The issue, therefore, is where the petitioner has already made contributions which others in the field, with whom she never studied or worked, recognize as having influenced the field.
Attestation from current and prior supervisors tend to support a conclusion that the national interest would NOT be adversely affected if an employer were to request permanent employment certification from the Department of Labor, and to file an immigrant petition on what would be the alien beneficiary/petitioner’s behalf.
********** Need more independent recom letters to testify the influence of your work
To show that the petitioner has made contributions with “some degree of influence on the field,” persuasive evidence usually consists of expert attestation from department heads, chainmen, and chief executive officers of institutions and organizations, in the U.S. and overseas. It may also consist of attestation from professors whose institutions are involved in substantially similar research.
***** Here the officer has clearly indicated where you could get the recomm letters they prefer
For example, some expert attestations specify the influence that a petitioner’s research, as documented in articles and chapters within scholarly textbooks, have in the field. Some experts specify the awards (other than travel award, and invitations to speak) given to the petitioner as the basis for their conclusion. Where experts specify the bases for their attestations, the petitioner must copies of documentation to corroborate those bases. Otherwise the experts’ attestation will be unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated attestations will be carry less weight in this proceeding, and not support a decision favorable to the petitioner.
****** Here the officer indicated that the potential evidence you can collect
The record must establish that the alien petitioner has a past record of specific prior achievement which justifies projections of future benefits to the national interest. The alien petitioner must establish their ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater than the majority of the colleagues. The alien petitioner must demonstrate their influence on their field of employment as a whole. If they hold a patent or are responsible for an innovation, then they must demonstrate that the specific innovation serves the national interest.
******* here the officer wants to see the influence of your prior works or achievements (no matter what research you have done before)
Please one or more experts’ letters attesting to their impact that the alien petitioner’s work has had to cancer research. The experts should refer to specific articles, or other publications on which their claims are made. Copies of the documents used by the experts should be included.
***** better to get a letter from people who cited your work (such as your publication, conference abstarct etc)
從RFE的信件，我歸納了一下，移民官想要我補充以下兩點：
1 來自聲望/職務很高的教授的獨立推薦信 (與癌症有關的)；
2 和推薦信相關的證據(與癌症有關的文章/摘要等)。
****** basically yes
請教大俠，我的分析是否準確？ 有無補充？ 歡迎任何建議，評論. 我的情況有一點點兒特殊，去年9月申請的時候我開始做癌症方麵的研究才1個半月。所以遞交材料的時候並沒有什麽癌症方麵的東西。到今年9月我剛剛在癌症方麵工作了一年，還沒有第一作者的文章，隻有一篇第3作者的文章，1篇第3作者的會議摘要，1篇第二作者的綜述，1篇第四作者的綜述，1篇第8作者的文章準備投“SCIENCE”但希望不大。第一作者的文章估計最早也要到明年才能開始動筆寫。
Althrough you do not have 1st author paper of cancer research, but you do have several co-authorship papers, check to see if any persons has cited any of those papers or any reprint request via email or other means. If you have finshed your 1st authorship manu, you can included it along with a letter from your Department Chairperson to testify the potential influence of your work.
You can provide more evidence than the officer requested as long as the evidence can support your superiority to your peers in the same field.
Just for reference!!!!
In this proceeding, the petitioner (who may also be referred to as the alien beneficiary) must show that she has met all 3 prongs set forth in this agency’s precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The evidence shows that the petitioner’s activities meet the first two prongs: substantial intrinsic merit; and national in scope. However, reference letters from the petitioner’s colleagues (some of whom also supervised her, copies of articles co-authored by the petitioner’s with those colleagues, and references to a citation of the petitioner’s work are not sufficient to show that the petitioner has a past history of demonstrable achievement with “some degree of influence on the field”. Researchers, after all, research, and for research to be useful, it must be published. The issue, therefore, is where the petitioner has already made contributions which others in the field, with whom she never studied or worked, recognize as having influenced the field.
Attestation from current and prior supervisors tend to support a conclusion that the national interest would NOT be adversely affected if an employer were to request permanent employment certification from the Department of Labor, and to file an immigrant petition on what would be the alien beneficiary/petitioner’s behalf.
********** Need more independent recom letters to testify the influence of your work
To show that the petitioner has made contributions with “some degree of influence on the field,” persuasive evidence usually consists of expert attestation from department heads, chainmen, and chief executive officers of institutions and organizations, in the U.S. and overseas. It may also consist of attestation from professors whose institutions are involved in substantially similar research.
***** Here the officer has clearly indicated where you could get the recomm letters they prefer
For example, some expert attestations specify the influence that a petitioner’s research, as documented in articles and chapters within scholarly textbooks, have in the field. Some experts specify the awards (other than travel award, and invitations to speak) given to the petitioner as the basis for their conclusion. Where experts specify the bases for their attestations, the petitioner must copies of documentation to corroborate those bases. Otherwise the experts’ attestation will be unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated attestations will be carry less weight in this proceeding, and not support a decision favorable to the petitioner.
****** Here the officer indicated that the potential evidence you can collect
The record must establish that the alien petitioner has a past record of specific prior achievement which justifies projections of future benefits to the national interest. The alien petitioner must establish their ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater than the majority of the colleagues. The alien petitioner must demonstrate their influence on their field of employment as a whole. If they hold a patent or are responsible for an innovation, then they must demonstrate that the specific innovation serves the national interest.
******* here the officer wants to see the influence of your prior works or achievements (no matter what research you have done before)
Please one or more experts’ letters attesting to their impact that the alien petitioner’s work has had to cancer research. The experts should refer to specific articles, or other publications on which their claims are made. Copies of the documents used by the experts should be included.
***** better to get a letter from people who cited your work (such as your publication, conference abstarct etc)
從RFE的信件，我歸納了一下，移民官想要我補充以下兩點：
1 來自聲望/職務很高的教授的獨立推薦信 (與癌症有關的)；
2 和推薦信相關的證據(與癌症有關的文章/摘要等)。
****** basically yes
請教大俠，我的分析是否準確？ 有無補充？ 歡迎任何建議，評論. 我的情況有一點點兒特殊，去年9月申請的時候我開始做癌症方麵的研究才1個半月。所以遞交材料的時候並沒有什麽癌症方麵的東西。到今年9月我剛剛在癌症方麵工作了一年，還沒有第一作者的文章，隻有一篇第3作者的文章，1篇第3作者的會議摘要，1篇第二作者的綜述，1篇第四作者的綜述，1篇第8作者的文章準備投“SCIENCE”但希望不大。第一作者的文章估計最早也要到明年才能開始動筆寫。
Althrough you do not have 1st author paper of cancer research, but you do have several co-authorship papers, check to see if any persons has cited any of those papers or any reprint request via email or other means. If you have finshed your 1st authorship manu, you can included it along with a letter from your Department Chairperson to testify the potential influence of your work.
You can provide more evidence than the officer requested as long as the evidence can support your superiority to your peers in the same field.
Just for reference!!!!
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
