发信人: pidan (派大星), 信区: Immigration
标 题: DIY EB1A 140 approved after RFE (附RFE Response)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Apr 29 00:54:06 2011, 美东)
）忘记付上offer letter 和研究计划；2）独立推荐人忘记强调他们的独立身分。如果
First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for the detailed
and thorough reviews of my case!
Originally I submitted my petition seeking classification as an Alien of
Extraordinary Ability in the sciences by meeting 4 of the regulatory
criteria at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3): (iii) published material; (v) original
contributions; and (vi) authorship. I very much appreciate that you
considered my criteria of (iii) published material and (vi) authorship have
been met. I am sorry to know that I didn’t provide enough evidence to
demonstrate my qualification in the criterion of (v) original contribution.
Below I have responses each of your questions or comments and enclosed
additional documentary evidence for the quests.
A. Employment letter and personal statement
It must be shown whether the beneficiary will continue working in the
claimed area of expertise. The petition does not indicate that the
beneficiary has prearranged commitments for working in this field. Please
submit evidence that the beneficiary is coming to the United States to
continue work in the field. The work must be in the field in which the
beneficiary has garnered sustained national or international acclaim.
Evidence that may be submitted to satisfy this requirement includes, but not
Letters from current or prospective employers;
Employment contracts; or,
A statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he
intends to continue work in the United States.
My response: Thank you for requesting more details about my employment and
career plan. A employment authorization letter (Exhibit RFE A1) and a
statement on my career plan (Exhibit REF A2) are submitted for your request.
B. Published material
The petitioner has submitted evidence of numerous articles about the
beneficiary in professional or major trade publications or other major media
. This criterion has been met.
My response: Thank you very much.
C. Judge the work of others
Although the petitioner did not claim to have met this criterion, the
petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary received numerous
requests to review articles for journals. The petitioner; however, did not
submit evidence that the beneficiary actually reviewed the articles. If the
petitioner believes that the beneficiary meets this criterion, the
petitioner must submit evidence for each journal indicating the number of
articles the beneficiary reviewed.
My response: Thank you very much for the detailed review and catching the
evidence of my paper reviews. For your request, I summarized my review
record in Table 1, and the proof for the xx reviews for xx journals could be
found in Exhibits RFE C1 – C8 that include copies of one invitation email
and one acknowledgement email.
Table 1 Complete Information of Judging the Work of Others
Journal Invitation Acknowledgement Exhibit
The petitioner submitted evidence of citations of the beneficiary’s work,
and reports that seventy citations is an unusually large number in the field
of XX. The petitioner explains that the field of XX generally has much
fewer publications and citations than other areas of science. Submit
evidence that seventy citations is an unusually large number in the field of
XX, and that the field of XX generally has much fewer publications and
citations than other areas of science.
My response: Thank you for noticing that 70 citations is an unusually large
number in the field of XX. To prove this, I compared my publications and
citations with the renowned XX researchers elected by SciClips (Exhibit RFE
D1) Their names, affiliations, research titles, and publications and
citations for XX found by Google Scholar (Exhibits RFE D2-D21) were listed
in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, my 70 citations ranked top 2 among the
other 20 distinguished XX researchers, most of whom are professors and
principle researchers in the renowned institutes for XX. From this
comparison, one can clearly conclude that 70 citations is an unusually large
number in the field of XX.
Table 2 XX Researchers found by SciClips and their XX citations
Rank Name Affiliation Title Publication Citation Exhibit
For your second request of submitting evidence that the field of XX
generally has much fewer publications and citations than other areas of
science, a chart showing an all-time publication amount comparison in the
biology-related fields was made based on the PubMed database of the National
Center for Biotechnology Information (Exhibit RFE D22). As shown in Figure
1, the all-time publication number for XX (1,986) is much lower than those
numbers for the other bio-related research fields, like animal (4,750,589),
plant (569,305), microbial (223,771), disease (2,577,050), and cancer (2,490
,033). The citation amount pattern for the all-time publications in these
areas should be similar, because authors mostly cite the articles in the
close fields. One thus can clearly conclude that the field of XX generally
has much fewer publications and citations than other areas of bio-science.
Figure 1: All-time publication number comparison among bio-related research
E. Contributions – supporting letters from independent evaluators
Although the petitioner submitted letters of support, none of the letters
have been shown to be from truly independent evaluators. Individuals who are
outstanding in the field should be able to ample independent evidence
attesting to that acclaim. Submit letters of support from experts in the
field who do not know the beneficiary, who have not worked with the
beneficiary, and who is not a current or former employee of the beneficiary
’s current or former employer.
My response: In the original petition, I submitted supporting letters from
Dr. xx, a professor at University of xxx and Dr. xxx, the vice president of
the XX company . They only met me and had a few conversations with me at xxx
(original Exhibits C19 and C22). I hope that they can be considered as
For your request, I arranged 3 new supporting letters from truly independent
evaluators, who do not know me, have not worked with me, and are not my
current or former employee. The additional independent experts are Dr. xxx,
a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at xxx University (
Exhibit RFE E1); Dr. XX, Professor and Head of Microbiology at University of
xxx (Exhibit RFE E2); and Dr. xxx, Executive Director of xxxx(Exhibit RFE
In the reference letter from Dr. xxx, he mentioned “I do not know Dr. XX,
and I am supporting Dr. XX’s application only because of his excellence in
the field of XX. I have been asked for reference letters many times, and I
have a very strict policy of only writing letters for those who have worked
with me, either in my lab or in the lab of a collaborator. This is to ensure
my credibility when I do write on behalf of someone. Yet, I have reviewed
many papers on which he has been first author and his research is of very
high quality. Thus, I am making a distinct, but worthwhile, exception here.
”(Exhibit RFE E1)
F. Contributions – implementation of the patented innovations
The petitioner submitted evidence of three approved patents. Submit evidence
of significant implementation of the patented innovations.
My response: The implementation of my approved patents can be found in the
patent description of State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C (SIPO)
. (Exhibits RFE F1-F3). For example, SIPO describes the implementation of
one of my approved patents as “xxxx” (Exhibit RFE F2)
In addition, Dr. XX commented my intellectual properties: “Dr. XX has filed
six patent applications with his advisor, Dr. xxx within xxx years. That
was an extremely rare case for an academic lab, especially in this XX area.
Given the huge market of xxx and high demand for xxxx, I can assuredly say
that Dr. XX’s contributions have promising practical and marketing values.
” (Exhibit RFE E1)
G. Contributions – testimonies for the originality and major significance
of my contributions
Letters and testimonies, if submitted, must provide as much detail as
possible about the beneficiary’s contribution and must explain, in detail,
how the contribution was “original” (not merely replicating the work of
others) and how they were of “major” significance. General statements
regarding the importance of the endeavors are insufficient.
My response: In the newly submitted supporting letters, the truly
independent evaluators explained, in detail, the originality of my
contributions, and how they were of “major” significance.
Independent expert Dr. XX testifies my original contributions: “In the
stage of XX research, Dr. XX’s original groundbreaking contributions have
added to their reputation.” He also says “Dr. XX is the first scientist to
have invented techniques that may allow us to skip xxxx” (Exhibit RFE E1)
Independent expert Dr. XX also explains the originality of my contributions:
“In the point view of science, Dr. XX’s contribution was truly original
and sophisticated, because no one had this idea of xxxx.” (Exhibit RFE E2)
Independent expert Dr. XX verifies the impact of my research findings: “Dr.
XX’s creative genetics made his work critically important, and the whole
xxx society, including my own lab, can benefit from this.” (Exhibit RFE E1)
Dr. XX also remarks the “major” significance of my contributions: “In
reality, Dr. XX’s intellectual properties have great applicable potential
in the XX industry, because the interest in XX production is at a very high
level, and Dr. XX’s approach requires xxx compared to the all other
traditional techniques. This work opened the door to xxxxx.” (Exhibit RFE
Independent expert Dr. xxxxx concludes the originality and significance of
my contributions: “The urgent need to develop xxx, is now widely accepted.
Dr. XX’s outstanding contributions are superb to meet this urgency and
highly invaluable to the researchers who have sought a xxxxx.” (Exhibit RFE
H. Scholary articles.
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary’s articles. This
criterion has been met.
My response: Thank you very much. I submitted two additional papers (
Exhibits RFE H1 and H2) that I recently published after the original
I. Totality – authorship of scholarly articles
The evidence provided shows that the beneficiary has authored scholarly
articles in the field, or major trade publications or other major media. The
petitioner’s authorship of published articles may demonstrate that his
research efforts yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is
apparent that any article, in order to be accepted in a scientific journal
for publication, must offer new and useful information to the pool of
knowledge. It does not follow that very scientist whose scholarly research
is accepted for publication has national or international acclaim. Further
documentary evidence is needed to establish that the beneficiary is in the
top of his field and has sustained national or international acclaim.
My response: The publication quality is more important than publication
quantity in judging a scientist’s contributions. I have published three top
-quality papers in the field of AAAAA XX in XX (original Exhibit A1,
Exhibits RFE H1 and H2). My excellent publication record proves that I am
the most top of this field and have sustained national and international
acclaim as established in the following aspects:
(1) XX is the most top journal in the field of AAAAA XX. ISI Web of
Knowledge analyze results on the topic of AAAAA XX show that, of xx journals
that publish AAAAA XX research papers, XX is the most top journal with the
highest impact factor of xxx (Exhibit RFE I1). Of these 40 journals, XX
ranks the second by record count of 4 research papers (Exhibit RFE I1). Of
these XX papers in XX, xx were contributed by me.
(2) I am the most top author in this field. ISI Web of Knowledge analyze
results also show that, of xxx authors who published AAAAA XX research
papers, I tie for first place with xxx by record count (Exhibit RFE I2).
When ranked by summation of impact factors of the papers, I rank the 1st in
this field with xx papers published in XX (Table 3).
Table 3 Top authors in the AAAAA XX by impact of papers
Rank Author Record Count Impact Factors of Papers
Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Sum
Data based on ISI Web of Knowledge (Exhibit RFE I2) and the Thomson Reuters
Impact Factor 2009.
(3) I have sustained national and international acclaim in this field. As
shown in Figure 2, my publications have been cited by over xxx all over the
world (Exhibit RFE I3), and been reported by over xxx major professional or
trade publications and major media (original Exhibit B1), including
numerous national media reports (e.g., original Exhibits B2-B13), and over
xx international reports from countries all over the world (e.g., original
Figure 3. Map of citations and media reports on my paper based on ISI Web of
Science. Yellow icon “A” indicates the location of institutes that cited
my papers. Brown icon “R” indicates the location of some public
publications or major media that reported my search published in my papers.
(4) My publications have been recognized and highly praised by the
distinguished experts in this field, including 4 members of U.S. National
Academy of Sciences/Engineering and 5 independent expects (original Exhibits
C19 and C22, Exhibits RFE E1-E3).
Dr. XX remarks the top totality of my publications: “Very few have
published xxx papers in XX within just xxx years in our field and it is
likely the only case in the entire XX field in recent years. XX only
publishes reports of original research of exceptional importance and novelty
, which means Dr. XX’s work has to be in the very top in the field for
acceptance.” (Exhibit RFE E1)
Finally, Dr. xxx concludes “These two works are appearing as separated
manuscripts in the prestigious xxx. In addition, Dr. XX has been generating
much additional exciting data and his original research resulted in 11
papers. These findings help to fill in the gap of our knowledge in this
field and will go a long ways to helping solve xxx.” (Exhibit RFE E2)
Therefore, the documentary evidence exhibited above clearly establishes that
I am in the very top of this field and have sustained national and
J. Totality – significance and importance of published articles
To assist in determining that the beneficiary’s authorship establishes that
the beneficiary is in the top of his field, and has sustained national or
international acclaim, the petitioner may submit additional evidence to
establish the significance and importance of the beneficiary’s scholarly
articles in the field, such as documentary evidence that people throughout
the field currently consider the beneficiary’s work important, and are
using the finding’s of the beneficiary’s work.
My response: The recognition from distinguished experts in the XX field
clearly establishes the significance and importance of my scholarly articles
, as follows:
XX Reviewer, Dr. xxx, commented on my paper “xxxx.” (Exhibit REF J1)
Independent expert, Dr. xxx, remarks my papers. “xxx”(Exhibit RFE E3)
Independent expert, Dr. XX also testifies the importance of my work. “This
work is very important to me and my collaborators, because Dr. XX
demonstrates the ability to xxx” (Exhibit RFE E2)
After publication of my articles, I received numerous follow-up requests for
xxx, inquiries for techniques, and invitations for presenting my work (
original Exhibits C32-C36). I would like to provide more specific examples
here. On xxx, xxx inquired me about xxx. On xxx, xxx, Germany acknowledged
my kind offer of my xxx and related technical information (Exhibit RFE J3).
On xxx, Dr. xxx, President of xx, invited me to join xxx (Exhibit RFE J4).
On xx, xx, the Publishing Process Manager for xxx, invited me to contribute
to their forthcoming Open Access book, xxx (Exhibit RFE J5). These requests
and invitations clearly demonstrate that people throughout the field are
currently using the findings of my work.
K. Totality – conference presentation
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was invited to
present his findings at conferences. However, as numerous individuals
present their findings at conferences, the petitioner has not demonstrated
that the beneficiary’s invitations to present his findings establishes that
he is one of the few individuals at the very top of his field.
My response: Thank you for asking for evidence for my invitations for
conference presentation establishes that I am one of the few individuals at
the very top of XX field. I would like to provide two specific examples to
demonstrate this totality issue.
Mr. xxx, the event producer of the xxx testifies my very top totality in a
notification letter, “xx is one of the most comprehensive networking
conferences for xxx. To ensure the quality of the conference, we only
invited the very top researchers and giant xxx companies such asxxx. This
globally attended xx is proudly co-located with xxx, which will also draw
top xx leaders creating a wonderful environment for Dr. XX to share his
insights and research work.” (Exhibit RFE K8)
Due to the high significance of my research, I was invited to present my
work at xxx (Exhibit RFE K1). This meeting brought together industry leaders
, professors, policy makers, investors and researchers to provide unique
insights into evolving governmental policies, breakthrough technologies and
investment strategies in xx (Exhibit RFE K2). This meeting is a Nobel
Laureates Forum, where xxx Nobel Prize Laureates will present their insights
in the field of XX, such as Drxxxx (Exhibit RFE K3). Along with these Nobel
Prize Laureates, my invitation from the committee for a postdoctoral
researcher clearly demonstrates my distinguished reputation in the field of
Also because of the major significance of my contributions, I was invited to
participate as a featured speaker in the xxx. (Exhibit RFE K5). xxx is one
of the most comprehensive networking conferences for xxx (Exhibit RFE K6).
In the meeting, I am the only postdoctoral researcher of xx featured
speakers who are renowned professors, scientists, bio-company presidents,
CEOs, and CTOs (Exhibit RFE K7). This clearly demonstrates that my
invitations to the conferences establish that I am one of the few
individuals at the very top of the XX field.
L. Totality – Judging performance
Additionally, further documentary evidence is need to establish that the
judging performed by the beneficiary establishes that the beneficiary is in
the top of his field and has sustained national or international acclaim.
My response: As a young scientist, I received the numerous review
invitations in only xxx years (Table 2) due to the national and
international acclaim I have sustained in my field. 次数拿不出手，只好用短时
For example, I was heavily involved in judging manuscripts for xxx, which is
“xxx Journals.” (Exhibit RFE L1) The Academic Journals Limited General
Manager, Mr. xxx, emphasizes their criteria for selecting a judge: “xxx, we
only recruit very top scientists with outstanding credentials as manuscript
reviewers.” (Exhibit RFE L2). He also highlights my contributions to the
journal based on my top reviewing performance, “Dr. XX has reviewed
multiple manuscripts since xxx. I hereby, appraise his excellent performance
as a reviewer and appreciate his diligence towards improving the impact of
Academic Journals.” (Exhibit RFE L2) This clearly demonstrates that my
judging performance establishes that I am in the top of my field and have
sustained national and international acclaim.
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 24.56.]