EB1A Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) - 移民

幫一個朋友問個問題，他之前申請EB1A with PP
結果收到第一次的RFE後，然後最近收到 Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID)
不知道版上的版友有沒有任何建議怎麼回信給USCIS呢?
謝謝大家~

他的收到的USICS回覆信件的內容主要如下:

Final Merits Analysis
As the petitioner has submitted the evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary
has met at least 3 of the 10 regulatory criteria, USCIS must now examine the
evidence presented in its entirety to make an initial final merits
determination, of whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the
evidence, has demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of
expertise required for the E11 immigrant classification.
Established eligibility for the high level of expertise required for the E11
immigrant classification is based on the beneficiary possessing:

‧ Sustained national or international acclaim.
o In determining whether the beneficiary has enjoyed “sustained”
national or international acclaim, such acclaim must be maintained. A
beneficiary may have achieved extraordinary ability in the past but then
failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter; and,
‧ Achievements that have been recognized in the field of expertise,
indicating that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage who has risen
to the very top of the field of endeavor.

While the evidence demonstrates that you met at least three of the regulatory
criterion, USCIS does not find that you have sufficiently demonstrated
sustained acclaim and that you are one of that small percentage who has risen
to the very top of the field.

You have sufficiently demonstrated that you have served as a peer reviewer of
manuscripts for publication in noted journals in the field. We cannot ignore
that scientific journals are peer reviewed and reply on many scientists to
review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not
every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim.
Without evidence that sets you apart from others in the field, such as
evidence that you have reviewed an unusually large number of articles,
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or
served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot
conclude that you have risen to a level of extraordinary ability compared to
those at the top of the field.

You also submitted evidence that you have published 28 articles in
peer-reviewed scientific journals. You have also provided six letters of
recommendation from experts in the field. However, the only evidence provided
as to the importance of your publication are the journal metrics provided.
This evidence only shows that you are published in prestigious journals but
does not compare your publications with others in your field, or more
precisely with those who are in the top of your field.
The Association of American Universities’ Committee on Postdoctoral
Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set
forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the
factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that “the
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research
career,” and that ”the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to
published the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period
of appointment.” Thus, this national organization considers publication of
one’s work to be “expected”, even among researchers who have not yet begun
“a full time academic and/ or research career”. This report reinforces USCIS
’s position that publication or scholarly articles is not automatically
evidence of sustained acclaim.

Without sufficient evidence that sets you apart from others in the field your
published papers are not sufficient to demonstrate that you have risen to a
level of extraordinary ability compared to those at the top of the field.

Finally, you submitted evidence that your research contributions, in the form
of published articles, and three patents have been cited 239 times. The
record includes baselines-citation rates of Thomas Reuters, showing that some
of your papers are frequently cited for their published years in the field.
We acknowledge that for the short time you have been in the field your
publications have garnered respectable attention. Thomas Reuters offer a
useful tool for broadly determining the citatory rates for each field, but we
also use Google Scholar because it allows us to compare your citatory history
with that of scientists with whom you have collaborated, who have cited you,
and more accurately, who are in your specific field. Google Scholar shows
that scientists who have risen to the very top of your field have garnered
citation numbered in the tens of thousands. The E11 visa classification is
intended for “that small percentage who have risen [not will rise] to the
very top of the field of endeavor”. The initial evidence must establish that
you have “sustained national or international acclaim and that [your]
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.” Response to
your publications suggests an auspicious start, but your original
contribution do not yet place you among the very top scientists of your
field. It is noted that you have been granted three patents. However, you
have not provided evidence of how widely utilized these patents are.

USCIS agrees that you have published articles in the field, which have
garnered sufficient citations by others and which establishes that you have
made original contributions of major significance in the field. However, an
excellent publication (using the above referenced standard) in 2013 and 2015,
is not enough to establish that you have sustained acclaim and considered to
be at the top of your field. Furthermore, according to Google Scholar you
were not the principal author of the 2015 paper. Finally, Google Scholar
shows that scientists who have risen to the very top of your field have
garnered citations numbered in the thousands, whereas your citation number at
239.

--