幫一個朋友問個問題，他之前申請EB1A with PP 結果收到第一次的RFE後，然後最近收到 Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) 不知道版上的版友有沒有任何建議怎麼回信給USCIS呢? 謝謝大家~ 他的收到的USICS回覆信件的內容主要如下: Final Merits Analysis As the petitioner has submitted the evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial final merits determination, of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise required for the E11 immigrant classification. Established eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E11 immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing: ‧ Sustained national or international acclaim. o In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained” national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A beneficiary may have achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and, ‧ Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. While the evidence demonstrates that you met at least three of the regulatory criterion, USCIS does not find that you have sufficiently demonstrated sustained acclaim and that you are one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. You have sufficiently demonstrated that you have served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for publication in noted journals in the field. We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and reply on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets you apart from others in the field, such as evidence that you have reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that you have risen to a level of extraordinary ability compared to those at the top of the field. You also submitted evidence that you have published 28 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You have also provided six letters of recommendation from experts in the field. However, the only evidence provided as to the importance of your publication are the journal metrics provided. This evidence only shows that you are published in prestigious journals but does not compare your publications with others in your field, or more precisely with those who are in the top of your field. The Association of American Universities’ Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that “the appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career,” and that ”the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to published the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of appointment.” Thus, this national organization considers publication of one’s work to be “expected”, even among researchers who have not yet begun “a full time academic and/ or research career”. This report reinforces USCIS ’s position that publication or scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim. Without sufficient evidence that sets you apart from others in the field your published papers are not sufficient to demonstrate that you have risen to a level of extraordinary ability compared to those at the top of the field. Finally, you submitted evidence that your research contributions, in the form of published articles, and three patents have been cited 239 times. The record includes baselines-citation rates of Thomas Reuters, showing that some of your papers are frequently cited for their published years in the field. We acknowledge that for the short time you have been in the field your publications have garnered respectable attention. Thomas Reuters offer a useful tool for broadly determining the citatory rates for each field, but we also use Google Scholar because it allows us to compare your citatory history with that of scientists with whom you have collaborated, who have cited you, and more accurately, who are in your specific field. Google Scholar shows that scientists who have risen to the very top of your field have garnered citation numbered in the tens of thousands. The E11 visa classification is intended for “that small percentage who have risen [not will rise] to the very top of the field of endeavor”. The initial evidence must establish that you have “sustained national or international acclaim and that [your] achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” Response to your publications suggests an auspicious start, but your original contribution do not yet place you among the very top scientists of your field. It is noted that you have been granted three patents. However, you have not provided evidence of how widely utilized these patents are. USCIS agrees that you have published articles in the field, which have garnered sufficient citations by others and which establishes that you have made original contributions of major significance in the field. However, an excellent publication (using the above referenced standard) in 2013 and 2015, is not enough to establish that you have sustained acclaim and considered to be at the top of your field. Furthermore, according to Google Scholar you were not the principal author of the 2015 paper. Finally, Google Scholar shows that scientists who have risen to the very top of your field have garnered citations numbered in the thousands, whereas your citation number at 239. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 66.161.54.196 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Immigration/M.1486423526.A.B47.html