a*u
发帖数: 2334 | 1 30日 EB1A PP, 今天来了传真, RFE
背景在这里
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Immigration/31918459_3.html
Claim了Authorship, Contribution, Judge, and Membership (IEEE Senior Member)
承认了Authorship和Judge,
Membership (IEEE Senior Member) 没有被承认, 有110个Independent Citation (CS)
的Contribution 也没有被承认 (我最近又多了5个), 稍后附上相关RFE全文, 请求这里
的前辈帮助, 非常感谢 | d*****3
发帖数: 3702 | 2 你的contribution怎么写的？不知道有没有具体内容突出了original 和 significance
， 纯推荐信是不够硬的，
CS)
【在 a*u 的大作中提到】
: 30日 EB1A PP, 今天来了传真, RFE
: 背景在这里
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Immigration/31918459_3.html
: Claim了Authorship, Contribution, Judge, and Membership (IEEE Senior Member)
: 承认了Authorship和Judge,
: Membership (IEEE Senior Member) 没有被承认, 有110个Independent Citation (CS)
: 的Contribution 也没有被承认 (我最近又多了5个), 稍后附上相关RFE全文, 请求这里
: 的前辈帮助, 非常感谢
| a*u
发帖数: 2334 | 3 我的PL有30页, 有一半是写CONTRIBUTION的, 也许是写得又长又臭, 把他们惹毛了
significance
【在 d*****3 的大作中提到】
: 你的contribution怎么写的？不知道有没有具体内容突出了original 和 significance
: ， 纯推荐信是不够硬的，
:
: CS)
| b*********r
发帖数: 7139 | 4 不太懂MEMBERSHIP，为什么不只CLAIM CONTRIBUTION, AUTHORSHIP和JUDGE呢？感觉你
背景很强了，个人觉得RFE是PP的原因。好好准备没问题 | d*****3
发帖数: 3702 | 5 很长， 可以好好提炼一下挑最突出的部分用最简洁的话写出来， 记住是要写给外行看
的， 尽量多用比较，太专业的句子可以略写或者不要，
【在 a*u 的大作中提到】
: 我的PL有30页, 有一半是写CONTRIBUTION的, 也许是写得又长又臭, 把他们惹毛了
:
: significance
| c****a
发帖数: 3173 | 6 肯定是你的PL 太长，他们都懒得仔细看了。一般pp的话，PL一定要精简。 | IJ
发帖数: 494 | 7 你的背景够牛了，整整肯定能过
关于ieee的senior member具体是因为什么原因被rfe的呢
thanks
bless
CS)
【在 a*u 的大作中提到】
: 30日 EB1A PP, 今天来了传真, RFE
: 背景在这里
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Immigration/31918459_3.html
: Claim了Authorship, Contribution, Judge, and Membership (IEEE Senior Member)
: 承认了Authorship和Judge,
: Membership (IEEE Senior Member) 没有被承认, 有110个Independent Citation (CS)
: 的Contribution 也没有被承认 (我最近又多了5个), 稍后附上相关RFE全文, 请求这里
: 的前辈帮助, 非常感谢
| a*u
发帖数: 2334 | 8 here is the detail:
(ii) Documentation of the petitioner's membership in associations in the
field for which classification is sought. The association must require
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
The petitioner has submitted evidence of his membership in several
professional, honorary and academic associations:
- Senior member of the IEEE
- Member of ACM
The petitioner has submitted a letter from IEEE which indicates that 8%
of its 388,000 members are Senior Members. Information from the IEEE's
website indicates that in order to be elevated to Senior Membership, an
applicant must have been in professional practice in an IEEE-related
field for at least ten years, and have shown significant performance
over five of those years. The information stresses that "significant
performance" doest not require awards, patents or other extremely
sophisticated technical accomplishments, but can include leadership of a
program or project or publication of engineering or scientific books,
papers or inventions. In addition, education can reduce the number of
years of professional service required, up to five years in the case of
a doctorate. Therefore, judging by the information provided on its
website, IEEE does not appear to require outstanding achievements of
even its Senior Members, who can qualify through education and job
experience normally acquired by the average researcher. No evidence was
provided regarding the membership requirements of ACM. This criterion
has not been met because the evidence does not show that the
associations require outstanding achievement of its members. To assist
in determining that the petitioner's memberships satisfy this criterion,
the petitioner may submit:
- The section of the associations' constitution or bylaws which discuss
the criteria for membership for the petitioner's level of membership in
the associations.
- Documentary evidence establishing that the membership criteria can be
considered to require outstanding achievements of all members.
(v) Evidence of the petitioner's original scientific, scholarly,
artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major
significance in the field.
The petitioner has noted contributions that he has made in the field of
computer science, specifically in the areas of XXX and XXX, and provided
evidence that other researchers have made citations to his published
articles based upon these contributions. In total, the petitioner's
published articles have been independently cited on approximately 110
occasions. However, it has not been established that this level of
response from the research community is indicative of contributions of
major significance.
The petitioner also has submitted reference letters from the following
individuals:
XXX/XXX/XXX/XXX/XXX (they listed 5 out of my 6 references, 2 of them are
independent, another one was from an associate editor about my journal
review).
While these letters provide a detailed description of the research
conducted by the petitioner during his career, it must be noted that
many of these letters focus on the future impact of the petitioner's
work. In order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must establish
that his work has already made a contribution of major significance to
the field as a whole.
To assist in determining whether the petitioner's contributions are
original and or major significant in the field, the petitioner may
submit:
- Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the petitioner's
contribution to the field.
- Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently
consider the petition's work important.
- Testimony and/or support letters from experts which discuss the
petitioner's contributions of major significance.
- Evidence that the petitioner's major significant contribution(s) has
provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely
cited.
-Evidence of the petitioner's work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may include but is not limited to contracts with companies
using the beneficiary’s products.
Note: letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail
as possible about the petitioner's contribution and must explain, in
detail, how the contribution was "original" (not merely replicating the
work of others) and how they were "major" significance. General
statements regarding the importance of the endeavors are insufficient,
nor are simple reviews of the petitioner's resume.
Member)
(CS)
【在 a*u 的大作中提到】
: 30日 EB1A PP, 今天来了传真, RFE
: 背景在这里
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Immigration/31918459_3.html
: Claim了Authorship, Contribution, Judge, and Membership (IEEE Senior Member)
: 承认了Authorship和Judge,
: Membership (IEEE Senior Member) 没有被承认, 有110个Independent Citation (CS)
: 的Contribution 也没有被承认 (我最近又多了5个), 稍后附上相关RFE全文, 请求这里
: 的前辈帮助, 非常感谢
| IJ
发帖数: 494 | 9 关于那个ieee的，看看是否找个fellow或者其他人（比如section chair）
写一封推荐信，之前在板上看到有人这个被rfe的好像写了一封推荐信的过了
我也准备用这个呢
【在 a*u 的大作中提到】
: here is the detail:
: (ii) Documentation of the petitioner's membership in associations in the
: field for which classification is sought. The association must require
: outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized
: national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
: The petitioner has submitted evidence of his membership in several
: professional, honorary and academic associations:
: - Senior member of the IEEE
: - Member of ACM
: The petitioner has submitted a letter from IEEE which indicates that 8%
| z**********8
发帖数: 766 | 10 按照老大和analog的经验和说法，必须主攻contribution，需要提供比较客观的证据。
一起加油！
bless! | p*******h
发帖数: 1542 | 11 citation能否挑出大段大段的正面描述呢？
有没有别的国家研究所什么的向你询问建议意见，protocol，material，reprint啥呢？
membership看来是没有啥用，只能support contribution。
向版上学习，画图列表，简练强调自己的top | a*u
发帖数: 2334 | 12 我把两页的除引用之外的Impact的证据放到Authorship那个Section去了，包括网站的
报道和引
用，researchers and practitioners' requests for advice, 收入大学课程的阅读材料
等。我的110个Independent Citation中一半以上是2010年和2011年的。
呢？
【在 p*******h 的大作中提到】
: citation能否挑出大段大段的正面描述呢？
: 有没有别的国家研究所什么的向你询问建议意见，protocol，material，reprint啥呢？
: membership看来是没有啥用，只能support contribution。
: 向版上学习，画图列表，简练强调自己的top
| z**g
发帖数: 74 | 13 那些impact证据应该放在Contribution里 |
|
