Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cancer Biology
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. WAC 02 032 55546 (AAO Nov. 18, 2003) (NIW denied)
The AAO dismissed an appeal of a California Service Center (CSC) decision by a postdoctoral research associate at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. The research associate, who received his master’s degree in medicine from Hubei Medical University in China, had research experience with the herpes virus, tumor biology, biochemistry, and molecular biology, and had two years of clinical experience. The AAO determined that the evidence did not establish that the research associate’s past record of achievement was at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. Of note were the witness letters, publication record, and citation record.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted numerous witness letters from professors at various institutions, including the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center and the Scripps Research Institute. Each witness praised the petitioner’s ongoing research. In discussing the petitioner’s cancer research, one professor wrote:
The understanding of these gene products that have only recently come to light and the development of an applied application to cancer are on the cutting edge of cancer research in this country. Thus, [the petitioner] has an opportunity to make an important contribution.
Another professor stated that the petitioner’s findings “could be important for potential therapeutics which aim at inhibiting the blood supply to tumors.”
In addition to the witness letters, the petitioner submitted copies of his published research articles, but did not provide evidence of any citations to the articles.
The Denial
The AAO held that the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work had a discernable impact beyond the original contributions expected of most postdoctoral researchers. In this case, the wording of the testimonials hurt the researcher’s petition. Instead of focusing on his past achievements, letter writers concentrated on the prospective future benefit of the petitioner’s work. According to the decision, the testimonials:
center on the petitioner’s ongoing research and the expectation of future results. These witnesses discuss what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner’s work, rather than how his past efforts have already had a discernable impact beyond the original contributions expected of most postdoctoral researchers. While numerous witnesses discuss the potential applications of his current work, there is no indication that the applications have yet to be realized.
The AAO also found that the testimonials, which were written by witnesses with close ties to the petitioner, were not convincing evidence of significant influence on the field:
We note here that the petitioner’s witnesses consist almost entirely of individuals with direct ties to the petitioner. Their letters describe the petitioner’s expertise and value to his ongoing research projects, but they do not demonstrate the petitioner’s influence on the field beyond the institutions where he has worked. While letters from those close to the petitioner certainly have value, the letters do not show, first-hand, that the petitioner’s work is attracting attention on its own merits, as we might expect with research findings that are especially significant. Independent evidence that would have existed whether or not this petition was filed, such as heavy citation of one’s published findings, would be more persuasive than the subjective statements from individuals selected by the petitioner.
As to the petitioner’s list of publications, the AAO referred to a report by the Association of American Universities’ Committee on Postdoctoral Education as evidence that the publication of findings is an expected part of a postdoctoral appointment, and therefore insufficient to demonstrate the influence of the researcher’s work:
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 were the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatory 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 appointment.” Thus, this national organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected,” rather than a mark of distinction, among postdoctoral researchers.
Although the AAO found that publication is an expected part of a postdoctoral researcher’s job, it also noted that an impressive citation history would be seen as evidence of a larger impact on the field. However, in this case the petitioner did not provide a citation history for his published works:
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 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 petitioner, however, has failed to provide evidence showing that his published work was heavily cited.
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. WAC 02 032 55546 (AAO Nov. 18, 2003) (NIW denied)
The AAO dismissed an appeal of a California Service Center (CSC) decision by a postdoctoral research associate at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. The research associate, who received his master’s degree in medicine from Hubei Medical University in China, had research experience with the herpes virus, tumor biology, biochemistry, and molecular biology, and had two years of clinical experience. The AAO determined that the evidence did not establish that the research associate’s past record of achievement was at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. Of note were the witness letters, publication record, and citation record.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted numerous witness letters from professors at various institutions, including the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center and the Scripps Research Institute. Each witness praised the petitioner’s ongoing research. In discussing the petitioner’s cancer research, one professor wrote:
The understanding of these gene products that have only recently come to light and the development of an applied application to cancer are on the cutting edge of cancer research in this country. Thus, [the petitioner] has an opportunity to make an important contribution.
Another professor stated that the petitioner’s findings “could be important for potential therapeutics which aim at inhibiting the blood supply to tumors.”
In addition to the witness letters, the petitioner submitted copies of his published research articles, but did not provide evidence of any citations to the articles.
The Denial
The AAO held that the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work had a discernable impact beyond the original contributions expected of most postdoctoral researchers. In this case, the wording of the testimonials hurt the researcher’s petition. Instead of focusing on his past achievements, letter writers concentrated on the prospective future benefit of the petitioner’s work. According to the decision, the testimonials:
center on the petitioner’s ongoing research and the expectation of future results. These witnesses discuss what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner’s work, rather than how his past efforts have already had a discernable impact beyond the original contributions expected of most postdoctoral researchers. While numerous witnesses discuss the potential applications of his current work, there is no indication that the applications have yet to be realized.
The AAO also found that the testimonials, which were written by witnesses with close ties to the petitioner, were not convincing evidence of significant influence on the field:
We note here that the petitioner’s witnesses consist almost entirely of individuals with direct ties to the petitioner. Their letters describe the petitioner’s expertise and value to his ongoing research projects, but they do not demonstrate the petitioner’s influence on the field beyond the institutions where he has worked. While letters from those close to the petitioner certainly have value, the letters do not show, first-hand, that the petitioner’s work is attracting attention on its own merits, as we might expect with research findings that are especially significant. Independent evidence that would have existed whether or not this petition was filed, such as heavy citation of one’s published findings, would be more persuasive than the subjective statements from individuals selected by the petitioner.
As to the petitioner’s list of publications, the AAO referred to a report by the Association of American Universities’ Committee on Postdoctoral Education as evidence that the publication of findings is an expected part of a postdoctoral appointment, and therefore insufficient to demonstrate the influence of the researcher’s work:
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 were the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatory 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 appointment.” Thus, this national organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected,” rather than a mark of distinction, among postdoctoral researchers.
Although the AAO found that publication is an expected part of a postdoctoral researcher’s job, it also noted that an impressive citation history would be seen as evidence of a larger impact on the field. However, in this case the petitioner did not provide a citation history for his published works:
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 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 petitioner, however, has failed to provide evidence showing that his published work was heavily cited.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
