AAO EB1A判例讀後感
AAO的全稱是Administrative Appeals Office ，這個辦公室的一個職能就是負責處理140被拒以後的上訴申請。AAO的最終決定會在USCIS的網上發布。大家可以在以下地址找到：
http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-ext-templating/uscis/jspoverride/errFrameset.jsp
這些決定（判例）詳細解釋了為什麽有些140被拒，因此對正在準備申請140的同學很有幫助。下麵我簡單說說自己從一些EB1A的判例中學到的東西。錯誤難免，希望能夠拋磚引玉。
先說說 Original Contribution吧。怎麽樣才能證明你有重大突出的貢獻？最簡單的是通過推薦信來吹捧自己，那麽什麽樣的吹捧是有用的，或者更重要的是什麽樣的是沒用的？
首先不管推薦信怎麽說，取不取信決定於移民官。在判例Jan222008_01B2203中，AAO明確說明 “The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained nationalor international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements
submitted as expert testimony.”
另外，獨立推薦人的信要好，這個大家可能都知道了，在判例Jan182008_02B2203中，AAO寫道” The above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate colleagues. While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim”，這已經很明確地說了同事的推薦信效果有限。那獨立推薦人的信是不是還有差別呢，一點不假。在 判例Jan222008_01B2203中，AAO
寫道 ” letters containing mere assertions of widespread acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through her reputation and who have applied her work are far more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim.”
總結一下，就是說，籠統地說你很牛的這種推薦信不如具體說明你有啥突出貢獻的信管用。獨立推薦信也分三六九等：最好的是別人早就通過別的渠道知道了你的大名，或者用過你的成果，最差的是你發了個簡曆求人給你寫推薦信。
除了推薦信，另外一個證據證明你的突出貢獻就是發的文章了，這裏有一點要首先明確：不是你有文章就行了。USCIS的理解是，你是個Ph.d.，發文章是你的本職工作。原話是這麽說的（Jan222008_01B2203）：“While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. ”
那要怎麽才夠標準呢？對於這個案例來說，申請人是一個neuropsychologist，USCIS要求“simply demonstrating ability as a clinician is not, by itself: a contribution of major significance. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate an impact on the practice of neuropsychology as a whole”就是說你必須要能證明你的貢獻對整個領域產生了影響。這個標準在另外一個判例（EB1 Feb292008_01B2203）中也出現了“The recordincludes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work. None of the petitioner's references, however, provide examplesof how the petitioner's work is already influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a capable researcher with potential, it falls far short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major significance.”總結一下，就是說潛在的影
響也是沒用的，必須是已經產生的對整個領域的影響。
那我的文章引用很多總該行了吧？也不一定。在Jan182008_02B2203中，申請人發了很多文章，引用也很多，但是AAO寫道“Without a more detailed explanation of how the petitioner's work has impacted the field, however, they are insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions are of major significance. The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field.” 總結一下，就是說，你發得文章再多，引用再多，也得給我解釋清楚你的突出貢獻具體在那個方麵。這裏的重點是“突出”(major significance)。
哪怎麽樣才能算突出貢獻(major significance)呢？AAO解下來解釋說”To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work.”就是說必須別人采用了，或者重複你的成果。這一點和獨立推薦信是期期相關的， AAO接著指出 “the petitioner's independent references do not claim to be influenced by the petitioner's work and none of the references explain how the petitioner's work is already impacting the field”顯然，這個申請人的獨立推薦人是屬於上麵說的最差的那種。
有同學可能要問了，專利有用嗎？在Jan182008_02B2203中，AAO寫道“a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole”“ Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis”"The petitioner has not demonstrated that his patent has been licensed or is
otherwise impacting the field” 就是說專利得看情況，如果你的專利被賣出去了或者對你的領域產生重大影響，那還是有用的。
下麵接著講講Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles。這個大家都知道，就是你發的文章啦。
首先明確一下，什麽樣的才算scholarly articles? AAO說(Jan222008_01B2203)"Wewill only consider those documents that
clearly represent published scholarly articles or scientific conference presentations rather than unpublished manuscripts, a letter to the editor commenting on the work of someone else and a newspaper article that has not been demonstrated to be "scholarly."總結一下就是說journal article, conference presention都算，投出去的但是沒發表的，你在報紙上發表的豆腐塊，就沒戲了。
那是不是有期刊論文就行了呢？你要這麽想就大錯特錯了。AAO一點也不傻，知道Ph.D.的工作就是發文章:" we cannot ignore that publication is inherent to the field of research and scientific academia."不僅如此，AAO 還找了文獻證明自己的觀點: "The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 224 (2006-2007 ed.) provides that university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their findings.In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do research and publish their findings."
那要怎麽才能達到EB1A的要求呢？首先，你必須要比其他人牛才行：“The petitioner must demonstrate that her publication record sets her apart from other academic neuropsychologists in order to meet this criterion.”其次，引用必須要多：“Regardless, without evidence that the petitioner has been well cited or other evidence of the impact of the publications, we cannot conclude that she meets this criteria.”數量和引用這兩個標準在另外一個判例裏也體現出來了（Apr302008_05B2203).這個案例裏，申請人有很多文章，同時遞交了證據證明引用也很多，AAO認為申請人滿足了這條要求: "The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of multiple articles appearing in publications such as Journal of Experimental Medicine, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Nature Medicine, and The Journal of Immunology. The petitioner also submitted evidence of scores of articles that cite to her work. These numerous citations demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's articles to the greater field. Therefore, thepetitioner has established that she meets this criterion."
值得注意的是，這個要求也是某些移民官所采用的，例如在Feb202008_05B2203中, 申請人遞交了發表的文章，但是沒有遞交引用記錄，結果被判定不符合此項要求。移民官的決定中說“Copies of the self-petitioner's authored papers and case studies were submitted. There was no evidence to establish that the published articles have garnered national or international attention,
for example, by being widely cited by independent researchers.” 這個決定也被AAO所認同“few or no citations of an alien's
work may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field”
