e*****m
发帖数: 320 | 1 过来发个更新，之前情况在此：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/Immigration/33320413_0_1.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33334269.html
上周一提交了RFE RESPONSE，周四下午收到DENIAL NOTICE。现在非常
茫然，不知道怎么办比较好。。。
在收到RFE之后，整理材料，重新申报的老三样。
要了两封推荐信，提供了油灯图，发表杂志的介绍及排名，给出了所有文章的LIST，以
及CITATION的LIST，提供了average citation in the field的数据。基本上相当于重
新准备了一份申请。结果0002这次承认AUTHORSHIP, REVIEW，质疑CONTRIBUTION，质疑
TOTALITY。大致评价如下：
关于original contribution:
The petitioner has submitted several letters from the beneficiary's peers
and colleagues, evidence of pending patents and patent applications as well
as evidence of conference participation in order to establish the alien's
original contributions. The Service acknowledges the plain language of xxx
does not require the beneficiary's contributions to themselves be
internationally recognized as outstanding. However, the plain language does
require original research contritions, which is a higher standard that
simply original research. Had the regulation desired merely the submission
of original research, it would have excluded the word "contributions".
Additionally, the plain language requires the contribution to be "to the
academic field" rather than to an individual institution, campus or
laboratory. Having reviewed the plain language of the criterion, the Service
has not received any evidence to indicate the beneficiary's patent
applications or conference participation have risen to the level of a
contribution to the academic field.
With regard to the letters of reference, the opinions of experts in the
field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful
claim of international recognition. CIS may, in its discretion, use as
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where
an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way
questionable, CIS is not required to accept that evidence, or may give less
weight to it. The Service acknowledges opinions presented in letters
written expressly for this proceeding, but these do not overcome the lack of
documentary evidence that the beneficiary's work. Assertion about the value
of the beneficiary's work do not establish or imply international
recognition. This is not indicative of international recognition and does
not establish that the alien has made original contributions to the field.
然后在final merits里面讨论review:
The Service cannot ignore that most scientific journals and conferences are
peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to evaluate submitted articles. In
fact, reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of
researchers who publish themselves in scientific journals or attend
conferences. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and not every peer
reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. Without
evidence such as the beneficiary reviewed articles for a journal or
conference that credits a small, elite group referees, evidence of a large
number of independent requests from a substantial number of journals
articles or evidence the beneficiary's service in an editorial position
extended over a substantial period of time, the Service cannot conclude the
beneficiary's judging experience is indicative of international recognition.
下面是authorship：
The record contains evidence that the beneficiary's work has been cited in
numerous circumstances. However, a review of the submitted evidence and
independent verification of the materials submitted indicates several of the
reported citations were made by the beneficiary, the beneficiary's co-
authors and the beneficiary's research group members. In fact, up to one
third of the beneficiary's citation record can be tracked back to the
beneficiary or his research group. Self cites or cites by other members of
the research group do no establish widespread appeal or international
recognition of the beneficiary's contributions. The limited amount of
external citation regarding the beneficiary's work does not establish the
outstanding nature of the beneficiary's publications. Please not that the
very act of publishing one's research does not constitute a scholarly
contribution of major significance. Authorship and publication is a normal
part of a searcher's duties, and there is no evidence of record that the
alien's authorship has been recognized as outstanding within the field.
我基本上把原文摘录在此，以免因为我的错误理解而略掉了一些重要的信息。谢谢大家
！ |
F***m
发帖数: 2284 | |
j***a
发帖数: 1734 | 3 楼主加油，好好准备材料下次必过! bless!! |
R*******d
发帖数: 13640 | 4 Bless, 发包子安慰一下
【在 e*****m 的大作中提到】
: 过来发个更新，之前情况在此：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/Immigration/33320413_0_1.html
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33334269.html
: 上周一提交了RFE RESPONSE，周四下午收到DENIAL NOTICE。现在非常
: 茫然，不知道怎么办比较好。。。
: 在收到RFE之后，整理材料，重新申报的老三样。
: 要了两封推荐信，提供了油灯图，发表杂志的介绍及排名，给出了所有文章的LIST，以
: 及CITATION的LIST，提供了average citation in the field的数据。基本上相当于重
: 新准备了一份申请。结果0002这次承认AUTHORSHIP, REVIEW，质疑CONTRIBUTION，质疑
: TOTALITY。大致评价如下：
|
m*****f
发帖数: 157 | 5 Bless!
大概读起来是说，contribution部分不能体现对于整个academia的贡献，贡献提的不够
广泛。 （特别提到不能是对某个学校，某个实验室有贡献）第二个是推荐信里没有足
够的客观证据支撑。
Review 部分要说明是本领域expert级别拿到的review。Authorship 是说独立引用不够。
其实我觉得有点欲加之罪 何患无辞了
加油加油！下次就好了！ |
b****c
发帖数: 189 | |
c********3
发帖数: 4531 | |
p********r
发帖数: 3243 | |
p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 9 看了老帖子。是驴屎的问题。
1b啊1b,难点在驴屎 |
p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 10 仔细看了本帖，感觉nsc审理标准一夜回到了两年前。希望只是杀手一个人的标准，而
非整个中心 |
|
|
p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 11 逐条审理是否top,这是两步法刚实行时候的事情了。是杀手太变态，还是审理标准复辟
了？ |
k****3
发帖数: 1251 | 12 这个据得很是犀利啊。 不知道楼主的自引有多少，总引用有多少。 |
j***a
发帖数: 1734 | 13 还有0214呢，nsc真是杀手倍出的地方啊。。。bless楼主下次不要碰到杀手！
仔细看了本帖，感觉nsc审理标准一夜回到了两年前。希望只是杀手一个人的标准，而
非整个中心
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 仔细看了本帖，感觉nsc审理标准一夜回到了两年前。希望只是杀手一个人的标准，而
: 非整个中心
|
p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 14 不管怎么说，撸主证据的呈现绝对存在问题，责任在驴屎 |
e*****m
发帖数: 320 | 15 总共57引用，其中自引20
【在 k****3 的大作中提到】
: 这个据得很是犀利啊。 不知道楼主的自引有多少，总引用有多少。
|
S****a
发帖数: 3238 | 16 感觉是 杀手一看media就心生不爽
想法设法RFE 然后据了
说你不行 就是不行 行也不行
cmft楼主。。。屡败屡战吧。。
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 看了老帖子。是驴屎的问题。
: 1b啊1b,难点在驴屎
|
e*****m
发帖数: 320 | 17 后来MEDIA在RFE中就没有再提，重新申报了老三样。
【在 S****a 的大作中提到】
: 感觉是 杀手一看media就心生不爽
: 想法设法RFE 然后据了
: 说你不行 就是不行 行也不行
: cmft楼主。。。屡败屡战吧。。
|
t*********r
发帖数: 4143 | |
M*****2
发帖数: 379 | 19 1B 不是claim2项就够了么？ 下次一定过！ |
p********r
发帖数: 3243 | |
|
|
SH
发帖数: 264 | 21 楼主不要太灰心，这个io很变态，之前咨询过的律师建议遇到他RFE直接withdraw。重
新递一份马上过。 |
M*****2
发帖数: 379 | 22 1B是6条满足2条啊，这个IO是不是以为你是1A了啊？？
我知道的一个朋友1B只claim了 authorship和review，PP＋CC2个月绿卡就下来了
第二步就把authorship里面的杂志拿出来吹，review的杂志拿出来吹，citation有没有
哪篇的比较亮眼拿出来吹，找写推荐信的人使劲的吹，引用你文章的有没有top的学校
啊，牛人啊之类的， 基本就有了啊
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 够了？第二步呢？？
|
Q******o
发帖数: 718 | 23 这个数量在tsc够了，nsc可能就有点少了。应该多找这些引用的亮点（比如大段引用，
或者引用的人可以给你写推荐信证明你的工作对他重要的意义） lz加油，再战
【在 e*****m 的大作中提到】
: 总共57引用，其中自引20
|
w*******d
发帖数: 396 | 24 感谢楼主的的信息。下次一定过。
同时想问一下前面回帖的同学，withdraw之后，要等多久才能重交？
【在 SH 的大作中提到】
: 楼主不要太灰心，这个io很变态，之前咨询过的律师建议遇到他RFE直接withdraw。重
: 新递一份马上过。
|
w*****c
发帖数: 7276 | |
m****x
发帖数: 802 | |
m*********p
发帖数: 112 | 27 加油，下次一定过！
【在 e*****m 的大作中提到】
: 过来发个更新，之前情况在此：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/Immigration/33320413_0_1.html
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33334269.html
: 上周一提交了RFE RESPONSE，周四下午收到DENIAL NOTICE。现在非常
: 茫然，不知道怎么办比较好。。。
: 在收到RFE之后，整理材料，重新申报的老三样。
: 要了两封推荐信，提供了油灯图，发表杂志的介绍及排名，给出了所有文章的LIST，以
: 及CITATION的LIST，提供了average citation in the field的数据。基本上相当于重
: 新准备了一份申请。结果0002这次承认AUTHORSHIP, REVIEW，质疑CONTRIBUTION，质疑
: TOTALITY。大致评价如下：
|
m******g
发帖数: 3924 | |
g******e
发帖数: 313 | 29 big bless
【在 e*****m 的大作中提到】
: 过来发个更新，之前情况在此：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/Immigration/33320413_0_1.html
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33334269.html
: 上周一提交了RFE RESPONSE，周四下午收到DENIAL NOTICE。现在非常
: 茫然，不知道怎么办比较好。。。
: 在收到RFE之后，整理材料，重新申报的老三样。
: 要了两封推荐信，提供了油灯图，发表杂志的介绍及排名，给出了所有文章的LIST，以
: 及CITATION的LIST，提供了average citation in the field的数据。基本上相当于重
: 新准备了一份申请。结果0002这次承认AUTHORSHIP, REVIEW，质疑CONTRIBUTION，质疑
: TOTALITY。大致评价如下：
|
h******l
发帖数: 121 | 30 bless!
【在 e*****m 的大作中提到】
: 过来发个更新，之前情况在此：
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/Immigration/33320413_0_1.html
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Immigration/33334269.html
: 上周一提交了RFE RESPONSE，周四下午收到DENIAL NOTICE。现在非常
: 茫然，不知道怎么办比较好。。。
: 在收到RFE之后，整理材料，重新申报的老三样。
: 要了两封推荐信，提供了油灯图，发表杂志的介绍及排名，给出了所有文章的LIST，以
: 及CITATION的LIST，提供了average citation in the field的数据。基本上相当于重
: 新准备了一份申请。结果0002这次承认AUTHORSHIP, REVIEW，质疑CONTRIBUTION，质疑
: TOTALITY。大致评价如下：
|
|
|
t******s
发帖数: 17 | |
v******6
发帖数: 7081 | |
