回複：強烈同意, 及我的一點建議

盡管大家都公認你的CASE 很強如此(事實上也是), 但是, 我認為移民局拒的理由也十分充分, 與我分析的被拒的cases也基本一樣, 隻能說明:
1) 你的petition letter真的沒有準備好, 你過於依賴律師了, 不是他們水平不夠, 而是他們的letter實在是千篇一律, 移民官認為律師說的不時你的背景了.
2) 所以,移民官就需要你提供充足的corroboratng and consolidated evidence, 顯然, 這方麵你真的做的不夠.

因此, 不建議你appeal, but better to refile Eb1b or Eb1a.

幾點具體建議作為cff等人的補充, 不是轉也人員, 僅供參考:


-----------
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.）

-----應該沒問題了

(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？）
----award for 'student', 'university' 'local' including chinese academy of scineces, is not accepted.
but it's better to include it into your other criteria, maybe your original contribution, publications, etc, to make that criterion more consolidated



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?）
--- NSC doesn't accept this Sigma Xi, but better than nothing


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？)
----should be fine. but you have to includes more evidence including journals' reputation, circulation, why select you as a reviewer, and ask some of your reference state that you have reviewed frequently and regularly, and large number. 你自己說這是large number沒用.


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？）

---references letters are not that important as the consolidated and corroborating evidence for Eb1a. Apart from you freference letters, you have to present CLEARLY about your (為什麽國際領先雜誌?), 42篇論文，320引用次，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。這些證據足夠, 但是, 顯然你沒有論述清楚!

綜上所述, 你應該符合papers, original contribution, review, but difficult on award and membership. Spend more words on your elligible criteria with evidence as more as possible, then you'll get approved. 不要認為移民官"說你不行你就不行", 而要仔細分析你的case哪裏出了問題, 你就一定會有更大的提高, 最終獲得approval.

我的建議或措辭不一定合適, 僅供參考. 好運!

所有跟帖： 

• 謝謝你的建議。其實看完信後我對自己的申請也有同感。 -ns111- ♂ (235 bytes) () 02/28/2007 postreply 18:22:34