EB2-NIW RFE了，请问我还有可能被批吗？
1,828 views
Skip to first unread message
Norcal
May 26, 2011, 2:56:31 AM5/26/11
to China_NIW
2010年6月递的申请，一直没有消息，今天收到USCIS RFE Letter，虽然没有被拒，但感觉是没有戏了。
其实知道自己的case 挺弱的，当时，公司不给办绿卡，加上律师的游说，就硬着头皮上了，准备材料3个月，律师/申请费大几千。
REF Letter 具体如下, 请问，收到这样的letter, 是不是就等于被拒了？ 收到这样的信，我该怎么回复了？
This office is unable to complete the processing of your petition
without further information. Please read and comply with the request
below, then submit the evidence to the above address. Include a copy
of this letter and place the attached gold sheet on top of your
documents.
While some witnesses indicate that the beneficiary has useful ideas in
his field, the effectiveness of the beneficiary's method has not been
strongly established. The suggestion that such methods, possibly at
some future date, be beneficial is not sufficient to establish
eligibility for a national interest waiver.
The record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's work has
resulted in findings of major significance to his field which have
been widely implemented or that the beneficiary is more skilled than
others who perform the same or similar type of work.
Your claim that a waiver of the job offer, and therefore the labor
certification, are in "the national interest" are general in nature.
Most of the supporting letters are from research associates,
professors, and/or colleagues of the beneficiary and are more akin to
reference letters than to testimonials to his individual potential to
benefit the country on a "national impact" level.
While the beneficiary has published articles in journals, the impact
those articles have had on the field is not demonstrated in the
record.
The evidence to submit should clearly demonstrate the significance of
the beneficiary's efforts in the field.
It should be evident that the beneficiary's findings have enjoyed
widespread implementation and acceptance by the scientific community.
The evidence should include, but is not limited to copies of the
beneficiary's
a) patents and copyrights
b) grant proposals
c) peer reviewed articles
d) performance evaluations for the last five to ten years
e) work that has been evaluated in independent journals, and
f) awards for his work in the field
While beneficiary has made original contributions, as is to be
expected from an Engineer, and the beneficiary's employer, co workers
and team members clearly hold those contributions in high regard, the
record simply offers no indication that those contributions are
generally acknowledged as representing major advances in the field,
significantly beyond the capabilities of the majority of his
colleagues in the field.
The record does not clearly show that the beneficiary is the initial
or primary motivator behind ongoing projects which are central to the
Engineering field.
While you have outlined the beneficiary's strategies for major US
firms to establish footholds in Engineering, the record does not
contain any indication that any of these strategies have been
implemented; nor have you shown that any major corporations have
expressed interest in collaborating with the petitioner on these
plans.
The record contains generalized letters of recommendation asserting
the beneficiary's given abilities and achievements in the field.
However, no corroborative primary evidence has been presented
specifying the direct role the beneficiary has played in the field.
-----
其实知道自己的case 挺弱的，当时，公司不给办绿卡，加上律师的游说，就硬着头皮上了，准备材料3个月，律师/申请费大几千。
REF Letter 具体如下, 请问，收到这样的letter, 是不是就等于被拒了？ 收到这样的信，我该怎么回复了？
This office is unable to complete the processing of your petition
without further information. Please read and comply with the request
below, then submit the evidence to the above address. Include a copy
of this letter and place the attached gold sheet on top of your
documents.
While some witnesses indicate that the beneficiary has useful ideas in
his field, the effectiveness of the beneficiary's method has not been
strongly established. The suggestion that such methods, possibly at
some future date, be beneficial is not sufficient to establish
eligibility for a national interest waiver.
The record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's work has
resulted in findings of major significance to his field which have
been widely implemented or that the beneficiary is more skilled than
others who perform the same or similar type of work.
Your claim that a waiver of the job offer, and therefore the labor
certification, are in "the national interest" are general in nature.
Most of the supporting letters are from research associates,
professors, and/or colleagues of the beneficiary and are more akin to
reference letters than to testimonials to his individual potential to
benefit the country on a "national impact" level.
While the beneficiary has published articles in journals, the impact
those articles have had on the field is not demonstrated in the
record.
The evidence to submit should clearly demonstrate the significance of
the beneficiary's efforts in the field.
It should be evident that the beneficiary's findings have enjoyed
widespread implementation and acceptance by the scientific community.
The evidence should include, but is not limited to copies of the
beneficiary's
a) patents and copyrights
b) grant proposals
c) peer reviewed articles
d) performance evaluations for the last five to ten years
e) work that has been evaluated in independent journals, and
f) awards for his work in the field
While beneficiary has made original contributions, as is to be
expected from an Engineer, and the beneficiary's employer, co workers
and team members clearly hold those contributions in high regard, the
record simply offers no indication that those contributions are
generally acknowledged as representing major advances in the field,
significantly beyond the capabilities of the majority of his
colleagues in the field.
The record does not clearly show that the beneficiary is the initial
or primary motivator behind ongoing projects which are central to the
Engineering field.
While you have outlined the beneficiary's strategies for major US
firms to establish footholds in Engineering, the record does not
contain any indication that any of these strategies have been
implemented; nor have you shown that any major corporations have
expressed interest in collaborating with the petitioner on these
plans.
The record contains generalized letters of recommendation asserting
the beneficiary's given abilities and achievements in the field.
However, no corroborative primary evidence has been presented
specifying the direct role the beneficiary has played in the field.
-----
xin wang
May 26, 2011, 7:12:12 AM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
Bless
--
Xin
rui zhao
May 26, 2011, 8:46:57 AM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
我感觉不能说完全没有希望吧. 但我对你的case也不了解. ref其中一点说你独立推荐人太少.这个你可以加强.
然后说你的initial primary contribution没有证明, 这个是不是也可以让老板帮帮忙.
其它的,跟律师商量商量吧. 总归比我们有经验.
然后说你的initial primary contribution没有证明, 这个是不是也可以让老板帮帮忙.
其它的,跟律师商量商量吧. 总归比我们有经验.
rui
Li Quan
May 26, 2011, 11:08:39 AM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
yaofo...@gmail.com
May 26, 2011, 12:51:27 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
我最近也打算申请NIW。还没开始呢。Bless you！好好和律师讨论一下吧。
Norcal
May 26, 2011, 2:43:00 PM5/26/11
to China_NIW
背景很弱，ME Master Degree, 有几篇papers。
当时，律师说的很有把握，他们律师所很有经验，所做的case没有一起被RFE的. 现在打电话过去问，连电话都不接了。找个好的移民律师怎么这么
难？
谢谢！
> > 2011/5/26 Norcal katie...@gmail.com>
> > ------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
当时，律师说的很有把握，他们律师所很有经验，所做的case没有一起被RFE的. 现在打电话过去问，连电话都不接了。找个好的移民律师怎么这么
难？
谢谢！
> > 2011/5/26 Norcal katie...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Li Quan
May 26, 2011, 2:44:25 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
Katie Qin
May 26, 2011, 6:03:48 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
Li Quan
May 26, 2011, 6:04:46 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
rui zhao
May 26, 2011, 6:47:08 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
对啊,爆律师名字吧. 以免大家以后上当.
Katie Qin
May 26, 2011, 7:26:37 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
Law office of Xin Miao,
Flushing, NY
当初很犹豫，她说很有把握，我才同意办的。
现在我被RFE，一点头绪都没有的时候，她就不理睬了。
仅有一个月的时间回复，都不知道要准备哪些东西，心理没底，已经不报希望了，但这个RFE总要回吧。
来美这些年，从H1B到都现在的绿卡， 没有碰到过一个好的移民律师，刚开始接触的时候，都吹的天花乱缀的，后面找人都难，已经不是第一次有这样的经历了。找个好的移民律师怎么这么难呀！
2011/5/26 rui zhao <zhaor...@gmail.com>
rui zhao
May 26, 2011, 7:58:28 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
可以上网找名声好的律师吧, niw这种不大需要跟律师见面吧.
yaofo...@gmail.com
May 26, 2011, 11:33:24 PM5/26/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
这种烂律师太不负责任了！你是交了全款还是交了一半啊，交了一半损失还稍微小一点。
多向朋友打听一下有没有信得过点的律师吧，好律师说不定能妙手回春。。
多向朋友打听一下有没有信得过点的律师吧，好律师说不定能妙手回春。。
Copa
May 29, 2011, 1:53:45 PM5/29/11
to China_NIW
从REF Letter 看, 你有两个问题没解决好:
1. 缺独立推荐人
2. 推荐信不具体
既然只有一个月时间, 只有在推荐人/推荐信上下工夫了. 最快的是找过去学校的导师和现在公司里的manager. 导师方面看看能不能帮着找找其他
faculty写推荐信(当然你自己先提供底稿), 或者试试国内的联系, 要强调(1)推荐人的独立性, (2)你在MS期间就能出几篇paper
(这一点还是不容易的, 引申出你比大多数MS优秀, 有潜力为米国作贡献). Manager方面能不能强调你的工作的重要性 (in
general to national interest), 特别是你在team里的leading role/important
contribution. 对应IO要求的"the beneficiary is the initial or primary
motivator behind ongoing projects". 总之, 看看REF里这些车轱轳话, "the beneficiary
colleagues in the field", 你就知道该强调什么了.
SB律师不能就这么饶了, 先看看当初的合同怎么定的(case没final,起码有义务帮你上诉吧), 然后可写一封正式的信/email, 不要把
话说死, 但要有威胁(如不在一定时间内答复, 就怎么怎么样), like this:
I am disappointed about the service, or lack of it, your office has
rendered so far. I have called x times, but not a single time was my
call answered. This is completely unprofessional and unacceptable.
According to our contract, blah blah blah... I therefore request that
my case draw immediate attention from you. I expect to hear from you
by xxx. Without such cooperation, I will have no choice but to report
to the NY State Bar Association regarding your breaching of our
contract. Furthermore, I will have to post my experience with your
firm on major Chinese immigration websites, exposing the ordeal and
asking for help on further actions to take. That would not look pretty
and although not my intension, would damage your firm's image in
potential customers and have a negative impact on your business. Of
course, I am sure we both want to avoid that. So please contact me as
soon as possible to work together on this case.
Good luck!
1. 缺独立推荐人
2. 推荐信不具体
既然只有一个月时间, 只有在推荐人/推荐信上下工夫了. 最快的是找过去学校的导师和现在公司里的manager. 导师方面看看能不能帮着找找其他
faculty写推荐信(当然你自己先提供底稿), 或者试试国内的联系, 要强调(1)推荐人的独立性, (2)你在MS期间就能出几篇paper
(这一点还是不容易的, 引申出你比大多数MS优秀, 有潜力为米国作贡献). Manager方面能不能强调你的工作的重要性 (in
general to national interest), 特别是你在team里的leading role/important
contribution. 对应IO要求的"the beneficiary is the initial or primary
motivator behind ongoing projects". 总之, 看看REF里这些车轱轳话, "the beneficiary
is more skilled than others who perform the same or similar type of
work", "significantly beyond the capabilities of the majority of his
colleagues in the field", 你就知道该强调什么了.
SB律师不能就这么饶了, 先看看当初的合同怎么定的(case没final,起码有义务帮你上诉吧), 然后可写一封正式的信/email, 不要把
话说死, 但要有威胁(如不在一定时间内答复, 就怎么怎么样), like this:
I am disappointed about the service, or lack of it, your office has
rendered so far. I have called x times, but not a single time was my
call answered. This is completely unprofessional and unacceptable.
According to our contract, blah blah blah... I therefore request that
my case draw immediate attention from you. I expect to hear from you
by xxx. Without such cooperation, I will have no choice but to report
to the NY State Bar Association regarding your breaching of our
contract. Furthermore, I will have to post my experience with your
firm on major Chinese immigration websites, exposing the ordeal and
asking for help on further actions to take. That would not look pretty
and although not my intension, would damage your firm's image in
potential customers and have a negative impact on your business. Of
course, I am sure we both want to avoid that. So please contact me as
soon as possible to work together on this case.
Good luck!
bella bao
May 30, 2011, 6:03:35 PM5/30/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
貌似你这个是典型的格式化的general ref, 很多人的ref都和你的内容一样.
不用紧张, 随便对付对付,还是能通过的.
2011/5/29 Copa <copernicus...@gmail.com>
Katie Qin
May 30, 2011, 8:36:00 PM5/30/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
衷心的感谢大家的回复和建议，终于有了idea 怎么回REF。 正积极的找independent reviewers， 反正已经这样了，死马当活马医，自己尽力就行了。
从到知道REF到目前为止，终于在上周五收到律师的一封email, 简洁到只有5段话，看的心都凉了，看来只有靠自己了。
谢谢大家了！
bella bao
May 30, 2011, 9:04:37 PM5/30/11
to chin...@googlegroups.com
ffy9940
May 31, 2011, 2:34:06 PM5/31/11
to China_NIW
加油，你的律师太烂了。好好弄弄，说不定有戏。
On May 30, 8:36 pm, Katie Qin <katie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 衷心的感谢大家的回复和建议，终于有了idea 怎么回REF。 正积极的找independent reviewers，
> 反正已经这样了，死马当活马医，自己尽力就行了。
>
> 从到知道REF到目前为止，终于在上周五收到律师的一封email, 简洁到只有5段话，看的心都凉了，看来只有靠自己了。
>
> 谢谢大家了！
>
> 2011/5/30 bella bao <bellabao2...@gmail.com>
On May 30, 8:36 pm, Katie Qin <katie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 衷心的感谢大家的回复和建议，终于有了idea 怎么回REF。 正积极的找independent reviewers，
> 反正已经这样了，死马当活马医，自己尽力就行了。
>
> 从到知道REF到目前为止，终于在上周五收到律师的一封email, 简洁到只有5段话，看的心都凉了，看来只有靠自己了。
>
> 谢谢大家了！
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 貌似你这个是典型的格式化的general ref, 很多人的ref都和你的内容一样.
> > 不用紧张, 随便对付对付,还是能通过的.
>
> > 2011/5/29 Copa <copernicus.sparta...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 貌似你这个是典型的格式化的general ref, 很多人的ref都和你的内容一样.
> > 不用紧张, 随便对付对付,还是能通过的.
>
Yanzi Yin
Jan 7, 2014, 9:33:56 AM1/7/14
to chin...@googlegroups.com
请问你找的是哪个律师事务所啊？
在 2011年5月26日星期四UTC-4上午2时56分31秒，Norcal写道：
在 2011年5月26日星期四UTC-4上午2时56分31秒，Norcal写道：
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages