收到USCIS补充材料通知,请高人指点:
The evidence submitted in support of this petition consists of your attorney’s XX-page cover letter, in which reference is made to some XXX exhibits. None of these exhibits has been labeled tabbed, or otherwise identified. Therefore, reference to the points being made by your attorney are next to impossible to decipher, give the huge amount of paper that has been submitted. Your attorney has stated that the points expressed in the unlabelled exhibits provide the “quality and caliber of the documentary evidence presented” in order to establish your eligibility for a waiver of job offer in the national interest
The first item to follow your attorney’s cover letter is an excerpt from Volume 1 of a published work entitled “immigration Law and Business”, by Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., Alfred J. Del Ray, Jr., and Sam Bernsen. This submission appears to list several Administrative Appeals Office.
Decisions, none of which the service the service is aware has force of precedent. Further the Service is unaware of any recent appointments of the authors to the Judiciary. This portion of your submission therefore appears to have no value in establishing eligibility. However,
It appears that your attorney has evidence to the contrary, thereby raising this issue. Please provide a copy of documentation clearly showing that the particular case references have been reclassified by the federal courts as being ones with force of Precedent. Please also to provide evidence to show that Fragomen, Del Eay, or Bernsen (or all) have been appointed to the Federal judiciary.
You have submitted a large group of documents which includes a discussion by president Bush on future technology, and a large report to Congress on what appears to be very form of technology but that of beneficiary. Further it appears that the beneficiary’s name appears nowhere in all of this material. Please submit documentation to specifically show how this material directly relates to this beneficiary and his field of endeavor
Another group of documents consists of a publication entitled “American on line” and deals with the use of the Internet. .Again this volume of paper does not appear to name the beneficiary or address his efforts in his field of endeavor in any direct way. Please submit documentation to address this issue. Your response should specifically deal with the beneficiary and the research with which he is involved, and not be general in nature
You have submitted a large collection of a published material, which is accompanied by internet printouts showing that this material has been quoted by other researchers. It appears that first authors other than the beneficiary wrote an abundance wrote an abundance of this material. His name is listed, but for the most part, not as first author. The name XXXX appears to be first author on most of the citation records. He (or she) does not appear to be the beneficiary.
You have submitted a large amount of copies of Chinese news releases, accompanied by translations. These do not appear to feature the beneficiary or specifically name him. Submit primary evidence to show the beneficiary’s direct involvement in the research that forms the basis for this portion of your submission.
The beneficiary did receive awards in China, in 1996 and 1999. Inasmuch as the beneficiary was awarded a doctorate in 1999, please submit primary evidence to show these awards were not related to academic research, but awards significant among practicing researchers.
You have not shown that the impact of the beneficiary’s proposed activities would be national in scope. You have submitted a huge volume of paper, much of which speaks of science in general terms that do not identify the beneficiary or his current involvement in his field of endeavor. You must provide concise, direct evidence that specifically will show that the beneficiary’s direct involvement in the projects on which he is working will result in an impact that will be national in scope
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective benefit, it must be clearly established that the beneficiary’s past record justifies projections of future benefit to the nation. The impact of an individual optical or laser researcher working in a specific area is so diluted as to be negligible. The record does not show that the beneficiary’s efforts will impact the nation to a more significant degree than others who are similarly employed. You must provide evidence to show, in specific terms, how the beneficiary’s individual contributions and findings have set him apart from other researchers who are similarly engaged.
While the national interest waiver hinges o prospective benefit, it must be clearly established that the beneficiary’s past record justifies projections of future benefit to the nation.
The impact that the beneficiary would have must be shown to far exceed that of other practitioners in his/ her field of endeavor.
Subjective assurances that the beneficiary will, in the future ,serve the national interest can not suffice to establish prospective national benefit