Re: [問題] EB1A Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID)消失

看板Immigration (移民事務)作者flyawayla時間9年前 (2017/02/07 16:42)推噓1(1推 0噓 0→)

留言1則, 1人參與討論串2/2 (看更多)

mems, ciataion 2xx, publication > 20 從領域跟上述三個條件看來, 應該是律師或是你朋友沒有充分挖掘有用資料移民官審eb1不會是以一個『主動』找證據來反駁你資料的角度而是以一個客觀(至少要讓他覺得有理由客觀)的審查方式寫eb1的請願書不能只是條列出你的資料, 必須要有比較資料以下略講三層次 1. 請看這篇文章 http://tinyurl.com/z7vatox 第三頁的部分有 computer & informaiton science 領域top 10 school的資料請看citation per faculty 那一欄，從2004~2007 Stanford 35.25 Columbia 16.00 UM-Twin Cities 36.28 以下略這份資料是有名的 2007 faculty productivity index 請問你朋友有沒有利用『同mems領域的類似』資料說明他的past 4 year citations 比 top10 的 faculty多？我記得有機械領域的資料，網路上應該找得到 2. 可以看有沒有citation per paper, 看哪篇paper的citation數目是夠多的或是利用thomson reuters的資料來判斷你朋友的paper哪些是top 1% 3. 可以細看2xx個citation從哪裡來, 哪些學校, 該實驗室是不是有名如果是mems, 有沒有你朋友提出的任何觀點或是實驗結果被複製？有沒有你朋友提出的架構被拿去跟別人的研究成果做比較？有沒有被哪些書或是review paper寫進去？如果有被寫進書, 那這些書被多少圖書館蒐藏？以上每個都是可以琢磨的方向，先證明你朋友的貢獻比top 10的教授平均高, 次證明你朋友寫出的論文top 1% 再論證你朋友文章的世界級影響力如果正正經經的2xx citation，不是自我膨脹領域又是工程類的mems, 除非碰到移民官代號0214，不然應該是要穩穩過的才對但如果是0214，應該是要RFE的時候就果斷撤回申請案，等候一段時間再遞交新案 anyway, 如果是請律師，建議下次應該要找個比較有經驗的如果是DIY，那可能要多爬一些mitbbs的移民版 http://www.mitbbs.com/bbsdoc/Immigration.html 祝你朋友早日通過i140 ※ 引述《july ()》之銘言： : 幫一個朋友問個問題，他之前申請EB1A with PP : 結果收到第一次的RFE後，然後最近收到 Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) : 不知道版上的版友有沒有任何建議怎麼回信給USCIS呢? : 謝謝大家~ : 他的收到的USICS回覆信件的內容主要如下: : Final Merits Analysis : As the petitioner has submitted the evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary : has met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the : evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial final merits : determination, of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the : evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of : expertise required for the E11 immigrant classification. : Established eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E11 : immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing: : ‧ Sustained national or international acclaim. : o In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” : national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A : beneficiary may have achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then : failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and, : ‧ Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise, : indicating that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage who has risen : to the very top of the field of endeavor. : While the evidence demonstrates that you met at least three of the regulatory : criterion, USCIS does not find that you have sufficiently demonstrated : sustained acclaim and that you are one of that small percentage who has risen : to the very top of the field. : You have sufficiently demonstrated that you have served as a peer reviewer of : manuscripts for publication in noted journals in the field. We cannot ignore : that scientific journals are peer reviewed and reply on many scientists to : review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not : every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. : Without evidence that sets you apart from others in the field, such as : evidence that you have reviewed an unusually large number of articles, : received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or : served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot : conclude that you have risen to a level of extraordinary ability compared to : those at the top of the field. : You also submitted evidence that you have published 28 articles in : peer-reviewed scientific journals. You have also provided six letters of : recommendation from experts in the field. However, the only evidence provided : as to the importance of your publication are the journal metrics provided. : This evidence only shows that you are published in prestigious journals but : does not compare your publications with others in your field, or more : precisely with those who are in the top of your field. : 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 are 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 : published 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”, even among researchers who have not yet begun : “a full time academic and/ or research career”. This report reinforces USCIS : ’s position that publication or scholarly articles is not automatically : evidence of sustained acclaim. : Without sufficient evidence that sets you apart from others in the field your : published papers are not sufficient to demonstrate that you have risen to a : level of extraordinary ability compared to those at the top of the field. : Finally, you submitted evidence that your research contributions, in the form : of published articles, and three patents have been cited 239 times. The : record includes baselines-citation rates of Thomas Reuters, showing that some : of your papers are frequently cited for their published years in the field. : We acknowledge that for the short time you have been in the field your : publications have garnered respectable attention. Thomas Reuters offer a : useful tool for broadly determining the citatory rates for each field, but we : also use Google Scholar because it allows us to compare your citatory history : with that of scientists with whom you have collaborated, who have cited you, : and more accurately, who are in your specific field. Google Scholar shows : that scientists who have risen to the very top of your field have garnered : citation numbered in the tens of thousands. The E11 visa classification is : intended for “that small percentage who have risen [not will rise] to the : very top of the field of endeavor”. The initial evidence must establish that : you have “sustained national or international acclaim and that [your] : achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” Response to : your publications suggests an auspicious start, but your original : contribution do not yet place you among the very top scientists of your : field. It is noted that you have been granted three patents. However, you : have not provided evidence of how widely utilized these patents are. : USCIS agrees that you have published articles in the field, which have : garnered sufficient citations by others and which establishes that you have : made original contributions of major significance in the field. However, an : excellent publication (using the above referenced standard) in 2013 and 2015, : is not enough to establish that you have sustained acclaim and considered to : be at the top of your field. Furthermore, according to Google Scholar you : were not the principal author of the 2015 paper. Finally, Google Scholar : shows that scientists who have risen to the very top of your field have : garnered citations numbered in the thousands, whereas your citation number at : 239. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 47.37.158.54 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Immigration/M.1486456948.A.E13.html