回复：强烈同意, 及我的一点建议

尽管大家都公认你的CASE 很强如此(事实上也是), 但是, 我认为移民局拒的理由也十分充分, 与我分析的被拒的cases也基本一样, 只能说明:
1) 你的petition letter真的没有准备好, 你过于依赖律师了, 不是他们水平不够, 而是他们的letter实在是千篇一律, 移民官认为律师说的不时你的背景了.
2) 所以,移民官就需要你提供充足的corroboratng and consolidated evidence, 显然, 这方面你真的做的不够.

因此, 不建议你appeal, but better to refile Eb1b or Eb1a.

几点具体建议作为cff等人的补充, 不是转也人员, 仅供参考:


-----------
The petitioner ted evidence of having a good number of published articles in leading scientific journals. The petitioner also ted evidence that his work has been cited a large number of times by other researchers. The petitioner has also presented his findings at conference proceedings. The evidence establishes that the petitioner has met the authorship criterion (v1).

（这一条符合了。注意a good number of published articles in leading scientific journals.）

-----应该没问题了

(About awards, skip part. I have won some first place awards for research papers in my province and city, and president scholarship from Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is counted below as “academic awards”) The petitioner’s awards were either provincial which limits the scope of the award, or academic in nature. Awards won on the local or provincial level do not qualify under this criterion as the competition is not available to other scientists outside the region. Academic awards do not qualify for this criterion because they are not awards for outstanding achievement in the field of endeavor. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets the awards criterion (i).

（这一条有argue的可能性吗？）
----award for 'student', 'university' 'local' including chinese academy of scineces, is not accepted.
but it's better to include it into your other criteria, maybe your original contribution, publications, etc, to make that criterion more consolidated



The petitioner ted evidence of membership in Sigma Xi. The membership requirements of Sigma Xi require that an individual publish as first author on two articles, have a patent, written reports, or a thesis. Therefore, the minimum requirements of the society are readily attainable by any member of the scientific community who regularly publishes, or to those that have pursued a doctoral degree and therefore wrote a thesis. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner is a member of an organization that requires outstanding achievement (ii).

（Sigma Xi 我还是以前在这里看到的。这个membership难道一点用都没有？还有什么更高的membership?）
--- NSC doesn't accept this Sigma Xi, but better than nothing


The petitioner ted evidence of being involved in the peer review process for several scientific journals. The process of peer review is widely undertake by active researchers and publishers in the scientific community. The petitioner did not evidence of a large number of review works, evidence of sitting on an editorial board, or membership on an industry advisory board. The petitioner has not set himself above his peers through his work as a peer reviewer. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that he is a judge of the work of others in the field (iv).

(我交了大概有为10来本不同的杂志审稿的证据。其中有两篇是评审博士论文。这还不是a large number of review works？要多少才是large number？可惜我找每个审稿的杂志厚着脸皮要了那么多证明信。我是搞数学的，哪里有可能进什么industry advisory board？)
----should be fine. but you have to includes more evidence including journals' reputation, circulation, why select you as a reviewer, and ask some of your reference state that you have reviewed frequently and regularly, and large number. 你自己说这是large number没用.


Finally, the petitioner ted numerous reference letters from colleagues and peers. These letters support the approval of the petition and state that the petitioner’s work is original and noteworthy. Absence corroborating evidence such as approved patent applications or other relevant evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s claims of original scientific contribution of major significance, the petitioner failed to establish he meets criterion (v).

（这上面说我交了numerous reference letters（Origial+为REF letter补交的，14封啊。包括美国和其它六七个国家的，有一个是墨西哥数学会前任主席）证明我的研究原创性。还有什么corroborating evidence？搞数学的哪来的什么approved patent application？我申请里表明我在国际领先杂志上发表了42篇论文，被他人引用320次，我定义的空间被别人在文章的题目里用我的名字命名，我被邀请作国际会议的主要报告人，我的结果被引用到美国出版的学术书里，等等。这些证据还不够吗？）

---references letters are not that important as the consolidated and corroborating evidence for Eb1a. Apart from you freference letters, you have to present CLEARLY about your (为什么国际领先杂志?), 42篇论文，320引用次，我定义的空间被别人在文章的题目里用我的名字命名，我被邀请作国际会议的主要报告人，我的结果被引用到美国出版的学术书里，等等。这些证据足够, 但是, 显然你没有论述清楚!

综上所述, 你应该符合papers, original contribution, review, but difficult on award and membership. Spend more words on your elligible criteria with evidence as more as possible, then you'll get approved. 不要认为移民官"说你不行你就不行", 而要仔细分析你的case哪里出了问题, 你就一定会有更大的提高, 最终获得approval.

我的建议或措辞不一定合适, 仅供参考. 好运!

所有跟帖： 

• 谢谢你的建议。其实看完信后我对自己的申请也有同感。 -ns111- ♂ (235 bytes) () 02/28/2007 postreply 18:22:34