貼貼我的拒絕信(部分)，請大家幫忙診斷一下，還有治嗎？

下麵的Eb1a申請的I-140拒絕信裏的部分段落。看完信感覺就是人家“說你不行你就不行”。請大家幫幫忙，看看Appeal會不會有戲？著重Appeal下麵的哪幾條？另外，樓下LPLPLP說I-485被拒，H1B的status也會失去，是這麽回事嗎？要是這樣，我的麻煩就大了！另外，其他申請EB1a的也許可以借鑒一下。吸取點教訓。先謝謝大家。
--------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner ted evidence of having a good number of published articles in leading scientific journals. The petitioner also ted evidence that his work has been cited a large number of times by other researchers. The petitioner has also presented his findings at conference proceedings. The evidence establishes that the petitioner has met the authorship criterion (v1).

（這一條符合了。注意a good number of published articles in leading scientific journals.）

(About awards, skip part. I have won some first place awards for research papers in my province and city, and president scholarship from Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is counted below as “academic awards”) The petitioner’s awards were either provincial which limits the scope of the award, or academic in nature. Awards won on the local or provincial level do not qualify under this criterion as the competition is not available to other scientists outside the region. Academic awards do not qualify for this criterion because they are not awards for outstanding achievement in the field of endeavor. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets the awards criterion (i).

（這一條有argue的可能性嗎？）

The petitioner ted evidence of membership in Sigma Xi. The membership requirements of Sigma Xi require that an individual publish as first author on two articles, have a patent, written reports, or a thesis. Therefore, the minimum requirements of the society are readily attainable by any member of the scientific community who regularly publishes, or to those that have pursued a doctoral degree and therefore wrote a thesis. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner is a member of an organization that requires outstanding achievement (ii).

（Sigma Xi 我還是以前在這裏看到的。這個membership難道一點用都沒有？還有什麽更高的membership?）

The petitioner ted evidence of being involved in the peer review process for several scientific journals. The process of peer review is widely undertake by active researchers and publishers in the scientific community. The petitioner did not evidence of a large number of review works, evidence of sitting on an editorial board, or membership on an industry advisory board. The petitioner has not set himself above his peers through his work as a peer reviewer. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that he is a judge of the work of others in the field (iv).

(我交了大概有為10來本不同的雜誌審稿的證據。其中有兩篇是評審博士論文。這還不是a large number of review works？要多少才是large number？可惜我找每個審稿的雜誌厚著臉皮要了那麽多證明信。我是搞數學的，哪裏有可能進什麽industry advisory board？)

Finally, the petitioner ted numerous reference letters from colleagues and peers. These letters support the approval of the petition and state that the petitioner’s work is original and noteworthy. Absence corroborating evidence such as approved patent applications or other relevant evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s claims of original scientific contribution of major significance, the petitioner failed to establish he meets criterion (v).

（這上麵說我交了numerous reference letters（Origial+為REF letter補交的，14封啊。包括美國和其它六七個國家的，有一個是墨西哥數學會前任主席）證明我的研究原創性。還有什麽corroborating evidence？搞數學的哪來的什麽approved patent application？我申請裏表明我在國際領先雜誌上發表了42篇論文，被他人引用320次，我定義的空間被別人在文章的題目裏用我的名字命名，我被邀請作國際會議的主要報告人，我的結果被引用到美國出版的學術書裏，等等。這些證據還不夠嗎？）