AAO EB1A判例读后感
AAO的全称是Administrative Appeals Office ，这个办公室的一个职能就是负责处理140被拒以后的上诉申请。AAO的最终决定会在USCIS的网上发布。大家可以在以下地址找到：
http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-ext-templating/uscis/jspoverride/errFrameset.jsp
这些决定（判例）详细解释了为什么有些140被拒，因此对正在准备申请140的同学很有帮助。下面我简单说说自己从一些EB1A的判例中学到的东西。错误难免，希望能够抛砖引玉。
先说说 Original Contribution吧。怎么样才能证明你有重大突出的贡献？最简单的是通过推荐信来吹捧自己，那么什么样的吹捧是有用的，或者更重要的是什么样的是没用的？
首先不管推荐信怎么说，取不取信决定于移民官。在判例Jan222008_01B2203中，AAO明确说明 “The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained nationalor international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements
submitted as expert testimony.”
另外，独立推荐人的信要好，这个大家可能都知道了，在判例Jan182008_02B2203中，AAO写道” The above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate colleagues. While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim”，这已经很明确地说了同事的推荐信效果有限。那独立推荐人的信是不是还有差别呢，一点不假。在 判例Jan222008_01B2203中，AAO
写道 ” letters containing mere assertions of widespread acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through her reputation and who have applied her 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. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim.”
总结一下，就是说，笼统地说你很牛的这种推荐信不如具体说明你有啥突出贡献的信管用。独立推荐信也分三六九等：最好的是别人早就通过别的渠道知道了你的大名，或者用过你的成果，最差的是你发了个简历求人给你写推荐信。
除了推荐信，另外一个证据证明你的突出贡献就是发的文章了，这里有一点要首先明确：不是你有文章就行了。USCIS的理解是，你是个Ph.d.，发文章是你的本职工作。原话是这么说的（Jan222008_01B2203）：“While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, 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 has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. ”
那要怎么才够标准呢？对于这个案例来说，申请人是一个neuropsychologist，USCIS要求“simply demonstrating ability as a clinician is not, by itself: a contribution of major significance. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate an impact on the practice of neuropsychology as a whole”就是说你必须要能证明你的贡献对整个领域产生了影响。这个标准在另外一个判例（EB1 Feb292008_01B2203）中也出现了“The recordincludes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work. None of the petitioner's references, however, provide examplesof how the petitioner's work is already influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a capable researcher with potential, it falls far short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major significance.”总结一下，就是说潜在的影
响也是没用的，必须是已经产生的对整个领域的影响。
那我的文章引用很多总该行了吧？也不一定。在Jan182008_02B2203中，申请人发了很多文章，引用也很多，但是AAO写道“Without a more detailed explanation of how the petitioner's work has impacted the field, however, they are insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions are of major significance. The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field.” 总结一下，就是说，你发得文章再多，引用再多，也得给我解释清楚你的突出贡献具体在那个方面。这里的重点是“突出”(major significance)。
哪怎么样才能算突出贡献(major significance)呢？AAO解下来解释说”To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work.”就是说必须别人采用了，或者重复你的成果。这一点和独立推荐信是期期相关的， AAO接着指出 “the petitioner's independent references do not claim to be influenced by the petitioner's work and none of the references explain how the petitioner's work is already impacting the field”显然，这个申请人的独立推荐人是属于上面说的最差的那种。
有同学可能要问了，专利有用吗？在Jan182008_02B2203中，AAO写道“a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole”“ Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis”"The petitioner has not demonstrated that his patent has been licensed or is
otherwise impacting the field” 就是说专利得看情况，如果你的专利被卖出去了或者对你的领域产生重大影响，那还是有用的。
下面接着讲讲Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles。这个大家都知道，就是你发的文章啦。
首先明确一下，什么样的才算scholarly articles? AAO说(Jan222008_01B2203)"Wewill only consider those documents that
clearly represent published scholarly articles or scientific conference presentations rather than unpublished manuscripts, a letter to the editor commenting on the work of someone else and a newspaper article that has not been demonstrated to be "scholarly."总结一下就是说journal article, conference presention都算，投出去的但是没发表的，你在报纸上发表的豆腐块，就没戏了。
那是不是有期刊论文就行了呢？你要这么想就大错特错了。AAO一点也不傻，知道Ph.D.的工作就是发文章:" we cannot ignore that publication is inherent to the field of research and scientific academia."不仅如此，AAO 还找了文献证明自己的观点: "The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 224 (2006-2007 ed.) provides that university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their findings.In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do research and publish their findings."
那要怎么才能达到EB1A的要求呢？首先，你必须要比其他人牛才行：“The petitioner must demonstrate that her publication record sets her apart from other academic neuropsychologists in order to meet this criterion.”其次，引用必须要多：“Regardless, without evidence that the petitioner has been well cited or other evidence of the impact of the publications, we cannot conclude that she meets this criteria.”数量和引用这两个标准在另外一个判例里也体现出来了（Apr302008_05B2203).这个案例里，申请人有很多文章，同时递交了证据证明引用也很多，AAO认为申请人满足了这条要求: "The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of multiple articles appearing in publications such as Journal of Experimental Medicine, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Nature Medicine, and The Journal of Immunology. The petitioner also submitted evidence of scores of articles that cite to her work. These numerous citations demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's articles to the greater field. Therefore, thepetitioner has established that she meets this criterion."
值得注意的是，这个要求也是某些移民官所采用的，例如在Feb202008_05B2203中, 申请人递交了发表的文章，但是没有递交引用记录，结果被判定不符合此项要求。移民官的决定中说“Copies of the self-petitioner's authored papers and case studies were submitted. There was no evidence to establish that the published articles have garnered national or international attention,
for example, by being widely cited by independent researchers.” 这个决定也被AAO所认同“few or no citations of an alien's
work may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field”
