p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 1 这些是我从在准备RFE期间所研究的近百个EBI-AAO判例中的从贡献部分摘录的关键评判
语句，加上了我本人的解析。
移民局的很多观点仅供参考，不可全信（比如证据的交叉使用之类的），但它们确实给
我们提供了论证贡献major的正确方向，告诉了我们移民局最倚重哪些证据，而哪些证
据又是费力而不（怎么）加分的，哪些错误又是确实该避免的。我想这对于还在战斗的
、背景不强的战友们来说，还是非常有参考和学习意义的。
希望把我RFE期间体会到的、学到的，都毫无保留的献给各位背景不太强的新战友们参
考！
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
文章本身能否说明贡献----------
Any research, in order to be accepted for publication, 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 and contributes to the constant progression of the field has
inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole
. Publication and presentations are not "sufficient" evidence.
----------做了工作，发了文章，只能说明你的original work增加了本领域的知识，
但这只是你论述major的起点。Major significance to the whole field并不是文章和
工作本身就能证明的，必须需要申请人用实例来另行证明。
In other words, publications are not sufficient evidence. Although the
evidence shows that the petitioner's work in these areas is original, the
evidence does not establish that the work constitutes a contribution of
major significance in the field, such that it fundamentally changed or
affected the field as a whole.
--------工作被发表本身只可以用来证明originality, 但是你的contribution of
major significance in the field（比如你的工作是否fundamentally changed the
whole field）仍然有待证明。
Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or presentation
is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must
document the actual impact of his article or presentation.
------------往水塘里扔个石头不叫事，问题是你是否一石激起千层浪了呵呵。
The simple fact that the beneficiary's findings have been published and
presented at conferences does not create a presumption that the findings,
upon dissemination in the field, impacted the field, or are otherwise
original contributions of major significance.
发了文章开了会本身无法证明major，你得拿出证据来另行证明之。不管你往水塘里面
扔的石头有多大，什么形状的，你扔的姿势有多飘逸，俺们都不管。俺们只关心扔进去
后水花有多大、浪有多高。
To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of
science, it can be generally expected that other experts would have
reproduced or otherwise applied the petitioner's results. Otherwise, the
impact of the work is difficult to gauge.
-----------这里给出了论证major的重大指导原则！！申请者PL中论述时要尽量往上靠
，甚至可以套用相关词语。
Additionally, the petitioner asserts on appeal that his research has been
published in acclaimed journals and his articles have garnered over five
citations. Regarding the petitioner's published work, the regulations
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles.
--------文章发在牛杂上了（而且还有5个引用呢！），但文章本身证明不了贡献，你
拿它证明authorship去吧。
Regardless, the petitioner cannot establish his own individual
contributions of major significance through affiliation with a distinguished
institution alone. Rather, the contributions criterion requires evidence of
individual impact in the field rather than the reputation of the petitioner
's employer.
--------牛校、牛人手下出来的就牛了吗？扯大旗作虎皮的事俺们移民局不上当！别蒙
俺。
关于推荐信---------
...expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact" but
rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”. The content of the writers'
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are
important considerations.
------------（这是我看到的所有的AAO判例中关于RL的唯一正面话语，幸好被我找到
！）客观呆板的证据材料不会说话，是一本天书，要靠RL这个故事讲解人来明确说出来
这是什么，是证明什么的，分量几何；客观材料是静默的物，要靠RL来赋予生命。
While the letters discuss the petitioner's research, they do not indicate
that his results have already impacted the field.
--------RL光说工作本身了，你的impact呢？（这是RL写作中最常见的方向错误。）
Dr. does not identify any independent research institution pursuing new
research based on these original discoveries. Dr. also does not suggest that
these discoveries have already resulted in new clinical practice guidelines
in the field, clinical trials or have otherwise impacted the field at a
level consistent with a contribution of major significance.
---------这里给你几种RL中举证实例的方向吧。
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically
identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those
contributions influenced the field are insufficient.
Letters from independent references who were previously aware of the
petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his 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.
----------该找谁、不该找谁要RL，俺们移民局都告诉你们了！不要明知故犯了啊！
While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, they
are most persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed
independently in the public sphere. Such independent evidence might include
but is not limited to letters from independent industry experts with
firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the field, media coverage,
and citations to the petitioner's work.
----------RL的内容必须有客观证据（给出了三类供你们参考了）来支持才有说服力。
（切忌空话、套话）
The letters fail to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the
field. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy
the petitioner's burden of proof.
---------RL里面一味的重复那些审理标准无助于论证major.拿出实例来！！（这里注
意，RL里面切不可出现移民局审理标准中的法律词语，比如exhibit, alien之类的，否
则RL失去可信性。推荐人是不会使用这些法律词语的。）
关于引用（数）与major------------
Regarding citations, while the number of total citations is a factor, it is
not the only factor to be considered in determining the petitioner's
eligibility for this criterion. Generally, the number of citations is
reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has
taken some interest in the petitioner's work.
----------这里对引用数不褒不贬。（想表达的就是：我不管你引用高低，请给出你的
工作有impact的实例来！）
For example, the petitioner did not provide the pages of the citing articles
that indicate the proposition for which the authors cited her work. Thus,
she has not established whether they cited her as foundational to their own
research or as background material of related research in the area.
----------你连引用页都懒得提供了，那就更没法证明你的工作到底是怎么一个有影响
了。
Counsel states: "Only research findings that are considered 'fundamental or
important discoveries' to their field of research are mentioned in the
introduction of scientific publications." Counsel failed to provide evidence
in support of this assertion.
---------申请者说只有重要发现才在引言部分引用，但缺乏证据证明该论断，别蒙俺
。（还是那句话，不管在哪里出现的，你自己要设法证明你的工作对引文的major意义）
While evidence other than citations could establish the significance of the
petitioner's published research, the petitioner did not submit any other
documentary evidence demonstrating that his articles have been unusually
influential, such as, for example, articles that discuss in-depth the
petitioner's findings or credit the petitioner with influencing or impacting
the field.
-------引用不是一切，你引用哪怕为零也没关系。可你拿出别的证据（给出来了两种
）来证明你的工作unusually influential好不好？？前阵子有个筒子6个引用，俺不还
是批了！人家有个抗体全球卖呢！
Specifically, the evidence shows that other authors have cited the
petitioner's articles on these areas, the petitioner's work has had some
effect on the research of other scientists, and that his work has improved
one area in the field. The petitioner, however, has not established that
these events are indicative of major significance in the field as a whole.
Rather, they establish that the petitioner's work is applicable and
contributes to the overall progress in a field that is continually
undergoing improvement.
-----------纯引用的弱案子的大敌：你的引用泯然众人矣！（如何证明即便是一个脚
注也是major的，这个最难点需要下功夫，并辅以各种论证策略和技巧）
The content of those citations the petitioner submitted as examples of his
impact does not reveal significant reliance on the petitioner's results.
------还是那句话：泯然众人矣的引用没有说服力。（如果你的引用例子基本都是这样
的，那就要下功夫深挖、包装了。这是弱案子的最难点）
Recognition of the beneficiary's contributions does not necessarily
demonstrate that those contributions are of major significance in the field.
Instead, recognition simply reflects that the beneficiary's contributions
have been acknowledged by others as original, but does not reflect that they
are of major significance in the field.
-------你的工作大家知道了，承认了，并不代表其影响已经上升到了major的高度！【
这是要把弱案子往死里整啊！这是让人非常头疼的一类RFE。还是要回归到挖引用（以
及各种其他亮点！），要把一个脚注都挖成fundamental.】
关于各标准间的证据的交叉使用---------
The petitioner asserts that her peer reviewing is a reflection of her
contributions to the field. However, she did not explain how her reviewing
the work of her peers constitutes a contribution of major significance in
her field, other than to indicate that highly regarded journals would not
select the petitioner to review articles unless she had made an impact in
the field and her work was important. This assertion is not persuasive
evidence that the petitioner has made a significant impact in her field. We
have already considered this evidence under the judging criterion. Meeting
that criterion does not create a presumption that the petitioner also meets
the contributions criterion.
------------各类证据间的交叉使用俺们移民局不鼓励，也不认可。（必须交叉使用，
但着力点需要调整！）
来个猛的结尾：纯基础研究的没实际应用，该怎么办？？------
With respect to the director's analysis of the reference letters, the
petitioner asserts that the director did not understand the difference
between basic science and the petitioner's practice within applied science.
---------批俺们主任不懂基础研究和应用科学间的区别，说俺们一味的强调
application?!那俺就告诉你个明白吧：
The petitioner claims that as her field deals solely with research, that the
impact she can have "is to open up new areas of research for other
researchers. This could be in the area of drug discovery, or it could be in
the area of using existing drugs differently, or in the area of researching
the theories [the petitioner] proposes in different areas." The petitioner's
assertion that the discussions of her potential impact on drug discovery
demonstrate her impact on the field by showing that her work has stimulated
others to use her work is not persuasive. She must be able to demonstrate
that her findings have already moved the field forward at a level consistent
with a contribution of major significance.
-------这位大姐，你的论证方向错了，你自己都没认识到吗？还乱批俺们主任？
参考价值请各位新战友自行斟酌。
谢谢。 | d**********g
发帖数: 1713 | | i*********1
发帖数: 2334 | 3 RL里面一味的重复那些审理标准无助于论证major.拿出实例来！！（这里注
意，RL里面切不可出现移民局审理标准中的法律词语，比如exhibit, alien之类的，否
则RL失去可信性。推荐人是不会使用这些法律词语的。
我的RL里面有alien !! | j***a
发帖数: 1734 | | F***m
发帖数: 2284 | | t*********r
发帖数: 4143 | | s*******7
发帖数: 399 | | e**e
发帖数: 614 | | m******o
发帖数: 347 | | m******o
发帖数: 347 | | | | z****1
发帖数: 3840 | 11 赞!
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 这些是我从在准备RFE期间所研究的近百个EBI-AAO判例中的从贡献部分摘录的关键评判
: 语句，加上了我本人的解析。
: 移民局的很多观点仅供参考，不可全信（比如证据的交叉使用之类的），但它们确实给
: 我们提供了论证贡献major的正确方向，告诉了我们移民局最倚重哪些证据，而哪些证
: 据又是费力而不（怎么）加分的，哪些错误又是确实该避免的。我想这对于还在战斗的
: 、背景不强的战友们来说，还是非常有参考和学习意义的。
: 希望把我RFE期间体会到的、学到的，都毫无保留的献给各位背景不太强的新战友们参
: 考！
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ------
| j***u
发帖数: 3917 | | z**1
发帖数: 83 | | R*******d
发帖数: 13640 | 14 Zan.
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 这些是我从在准备RFE期间所研究的近百个EBI-AAO判例中的从贡献部分摘录的关键评判
: 语句，加上了我本人的解析。
: 移民局的很多观点仅供参考，不可全信（比如证据的交叉使用之类的），但它们确实给
: 我们提供了论证贡献major的正确方向，告诉了我们移民局最倚重哪些证据，而哪些证
: 据又是费力而不（怎么）加分的，哪些错误又是确实该避免的。我想这对于还在战斗的
: 、背景不强的战友们来说，还是非常有参考和学习意义的。
: 希望把我RFE期间体会到的、学到的，都毫无保留的献给各位背景不太强的新战友们参
: 考！
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ------
| r****r
发帖数: 94 | 15 Great analysis! thanks for sharing! | M****G
发帖数: 108 | 16 真不容易，楼主真有心了，这么辛苦的付出会有大回报的，赞楼主一个 | m*****q
发帖数: 1930 | 17 多谢分享经验！
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 这些是我从在准备RFE期间所研究的近百个EBI-AAO判例中的从贡献部分摘录的关键评判
: 语句，加上了我本人的解析。
: 移民局的很多观点仅供参考，不可全信（比如证据的交叉使用之类的），但它们确实给
: 我们提供了论证贡献major的正确方向，告诉了我们移民局最倚重哪些证据，而哪些证
: 据又是费力而不（怎么）加分的，哪些错误又是确实该避免的。我想这对于还在战斗的
: 、背景不强的战友们来说，还是非常有参考和学习意义的。
: 希望把我RFE期间体会到的、学到的，都毫无保留的献给各位背景不太强的新战友们参
: 考！
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ------
| k****3
发帖数: 1251 | 18 太厉害了，发现我的RL 这样写的 based upon his academic journal publication
records it is clear he works in the same academic field as me and I believe
this is the reason he has approached me for this letter. He has supplied me
with a copy of his curriculum vitae (CV), but I have no other personal
knowledge of Mr. Chen. My strong support of Mr. Chen's visa petition is
therefore exclusively based on my review and knowledge of his research
accomplishments.
看来我得改改让推荐人重新签啊。 | l******y
发帖数: 2643 | | l******y
发帖数: 2643 | | | | d****n
发帖数: 1241 | 21 赞, 顶!
【在 p********r 的大作中提到】
: 这些是我从在准备RFE期间所研究的近百个EBI-AAO判例中的从贡献部分摘录的关键评判
: 语句，加上了我本人的解析。
: 移民局的很多观点仅供参考，不可全信（比如证据的交叉使用之类的），但它们确实给
: 我们提供了论证贡献major的正确方向，告诉了我们移民局最倚重哪些证据，而哪些证
: 据又是费力而不（怎么）加分的，哪些错误又是确实该避免的。我想这对于还在战斗的
: 、背景不强的战友们来说，还是非常有参考和学习意义的。
: 希望把我RFE期间体会到的、学到的，都毫无保留的献给各位背景不太强的新战友们参
: 考！
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ------
| r*****5
发帖数: 512 | | d*******3
发帖数: 148 | 23 对于只有单句引用的，只能睁眼说瞎话般地吹了？ 想想也真够无聊的，不过有几个人
是真正意义上的牛人？ | a********3
发帖数: 587 | | n*******a
发帖数: 171 | | p********r
发帖数: 3243 | 26 不要再顶了，节省首页空间。
系列帖子见我的签名档。 | m**m
发帖数: 349 | |
|
