去年9月NIW 140/485一起递交到VSC，今年5月下旬被转到NSC，9月终于收到了RFE EMAIL，今天收到RFE邮件。原文如下：
In this proceeding, the petitioner (who may also be referred to as the alien beneficiary) must show that she has met all 3 prongs set forth in this agency’s precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The evidence shows that the petitioner’s activities meet the first two prongs: substantial intrinsic merit; and national in scope. However, reference letters from the petitioner’s colleagues (some of whom also supervised her, copies of articles co-authored by the petitioner’s with those colleagues, and references to a citation of the petitioner’s work are not sufficient to show that the petitioner has a past history of demonstrable achievement with “some degree of influence on the field”. Researchers, after all, research, and for research to be useful, it must be published. The issue, therefore, is where the petitioner has already made contributions which others in the field, with whom she never studied or worked, recognize as having influenced the field.
Attestation from current and prior supervisors tend to support a conclusion that the national interest would NOT be adversely affected if an employer were to request permanent employment certification from the Department of Labor, and to file an immigrant petition on what would be the alien beneficiary/petitioner’s behalf.
To show that the petitioner has made contributions with “some degree of influence on the field,” persuasive evidence usually consists of expert attestation from department heads, chainmen, and chief executive officers of institutions and organizations, in the U.S. and overseas. It may also consist of attestation from professors whose institutions are involved in substantially similar research.
For example, some expert attestations specify the influence that a petitioner’s research, as documented in articles and chapters within scholarly textbooks, have in the field. Some experts specify the awards (other than travel award, and invitations to speak) given to the petitioner as the basis for their conclusion. Where experts specify the bases for their attestations, the petitioner must copies of documentation to corroborate those bases. Otherwise the experts’ attestation will be unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated attestations will be carry less weight in this proceeding, and not support a decision favorable to the petitioner.
The record must establish that the alien petitioner has a past record of specific prior achievement which justifies projections of future benefits to the national interest. The alien petitioner must establish their ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater than the majority of the colleagues. The alien petitioner must demonstrate their influence on their field of employment as a whole. If they hold a patent or are responsible for an innovation, then they must demonstrate that the specific innovation serves the national interest.
Please one or more experts’ letters attesting to their impact that the alien petitioner’s work has had to cancer research. The experts should refer to specific articles, or other publications on which their claims are made. Copies of the documents used by the experts should be included.
从RFE的信件，我归纳了一下，移民官想要我补充以下两点：
1 来自声望/职务很高的教授的独立推荐信 (与癌症有关的)；
2 和推荐信相关的证据(与癌症有关的文章/摘要等)。
请教大侠，我的分析是否准确？ 有无补充？ 欢迎任何建议，评论. 我的情况有一点点儿特殊，去年9月申请的时候我开始做癌症方面的研究才1个半月。所以递交材料的时候并没有什么癌症方面的东西。到今年9月我刚刚在癌症方面工作了一年，还没有第一作者的文章，只有一篇第3作者的文章，1篇第3作者的会议摘要，1篇第二作者的综述，1篇第四作者的综述，1篇第8作者的文章准备投“SCIENCE”但希望不大。第一作者的文章估计最早也要到明年才能开始动笔写。
大家觉得有希望RFE成功吗？ 大家建议是DIY呢还是请律师呢？ 我个人感觉DIY最艰难的部分就是COVER LETTER, 如果有哪位好心人能够指点一下NIW 的 RFE COVER LETTER 怎么写或提供个样本参考一下我将非常感谢。当然我保证我只是做个人申请绿卡用，决不会外传给其他人。谢谢!!!!!!