v*********e
发帖数: 8 | 1 上周刷出了RFE，昨天收到信发现是最近十分热门的0317
基本情况：microbiology方向
paper 10
citation ～220 提交时
review 20
RL 6/4 independent，其中三个independent都多次引过我文章
有个一作的文章结果被人cite去做了clinical trial，初步结果还挺positive，而且
trial的负责人给出了RL，以为挺solid case，结果还是被质疑contribution：
You submitted six letters of opinion, but they do not establish original
contributions of major significance in the field. The letters are devoted to
an overview of the beneficiary's published research but do not give
definitive examples of how the beneficiary, through her research or other
means, has significantly impacted her field at the time this petition was
filed. Moreover, your original research contributions in the field must be
demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence.
(...模版套话说publications不reliable...)
Indeed, USCIS considers the number of independent citations to be an
objective, reliable gauge in determining the alien's original contribution
to the academic field. (没提thousand citation算不幸中的万幸吧) And so, USCIS
has concluded that, while your research demonstrates orginal contributions
in the field, you need to provide evidence to establish the contributions
are major significance.
之前猜测可能是文书材料太过模版化不够具体，看来果然如此。用的w家律师，因为最
近一两年周围好几个朋友签他家都很顺利过了，revise时只是改了语言逻辑和一些内容
细节，这是自己的问题。
现在想请教版上大牛们：由于IO认为推荐信有问题，我需不需要重新draft现有推荐人
的信再找签字提交，还是只用重写RL就够了？另找independent reference也不难，但
不如现有推荐人的角度好
谢谢大家！ | z*******u
发帖数: 42 | 2 这一段话和我的RFE一模一样，也是0317
You submitted six letters of opinion, but they do not establish original
contributions of major significance in the field. The letters are devoted to
an overview of the beneficiary's published research but do not give
definitive examples of how the beneficiary, through her research or other
means, has significantly impacted her field at the time this petition was
filed. Moreover, your original research contributions in the field must be
demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence.
to
【在 v*********e 的大作中提到】
: 上周刷出了RFE，昨天收到信发现是最近十分热门的0317
: 基本情况：microbiology方向
: paper 10
: citation ～220 提交时
: review 20
: RL 6/4 independent，其中三个independent都多次引过我文章
: 有个一作的文章结果被人cite去做了clinical trial，初步结果还挺positive，而且
: trial的负责人给出了RL，以为挺solid case，结果还是被质疑contribution：
: You submitted six letters of opinion, but they do not establish original
: contributions of major significance in the field. The letters are devoted to
| w********s
发帖数: 659 | | v*********e
发帖数: 8 | 4 看来这是0317的回复模版了。。
to
【在 z*******u 的大作中提到】
: 这一段话和我的RFE一模一样，也是0317
: You submitted six letters of opinion, but they do not establish original
: contributions of major significance in the field. The letters are devoted to
: an overview of the beneficiary's published research but do not give
: definitive examples of how the beneficiary, through her research or other
: means, has significantly impacted her field at the time this petition was
: filed. Moreover, your original research contributions in the field must be
: demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and objective evidence.
:
: to
| f*******c
发帖数: 2 | 5 我也被0317 RFE了
但我们的回复模板不太一样
0317先是认可了original contribution,但认为推荐信的内容无法证明significance
接下来，用从citation说事，认为citation和过千的比，不够significance
不知道哪个模板更tough... | z*******u
发帖数: 42 | 6 你打算如何response呢？
【在 f*******c 的大作中提到】
: 我也被0317 RFE了
: 但我们的回复模板不太一样
: 0317先是认可了original contribution,但认为推荐信的内容无法证明significance
: 接下来，用从citation说事，认为citation和过千的比，不够significance
: 不知道哪个模板更tough...
| l******n
发帖数: 114 | 7 0317其时很明确告诉你要啥，再找推荐人，用各种事实/引用，来说明你的工作怎么影
响你的领域，从而突出你的major significance | r****n
发帖数: 197 | 8 两步法，
估计你这个材料PL写作中，第二步没有下功夫
【在 f*******c 的大作中提到】
: 我也被0317 RFE了
: 但我们的回复模板不太一样
: 0317先是认可了original contribution,但认为推荐信的内容无法证明significance
: 接下来，用从citation说事，认为citation和过千的比，不够significance
: 不知道哪个模板更tough...
|
|
