DIY NIW pp received 的第二天就收到了RFE 求助！

RFE的具体能容是不是要等到收到纸质邮件才知道？有电子版的通知吗？
0921收到的pp  0922 就RFE，
是效率很高还是碰到杀手了，按理来说TSC应该很难碰到杀手
非常怀疑 是因为材料太厚了+pp  I/O 很烦躁 就直接给了RFE。。。。。。


NIW的RFE通过率咋样啊  我看网上说才有60%-70%
一般RFE会让补充些啥材料呢，感觉能提交的都提交了。。。绝望。。。


补充一下背景：
EE&AI  交叉领域 Phd，
提交的时候引用340，
论文34篇（一作24篇），
审稿62，
专利11，
奖项： 有一篇best paper
推荐信：3封（1封独立）


全部DIY，现在非常慌
我能想到就是可能会让我补充推荐信？其他的真的没有可补充的了，难道把原来的材料重新润色一下再提交一遍？
学校是七子之一，还在菊厂HW工作过，理论上应该只影响F签  J签  不会影响NIW，但实际上 谁知道呢。。。哭了。。。。



补充内容 (2023-10-12 21:54 +08:00):

National Importance
You have not explained how your work AI and computer science is of national importance. While the work can be of
national importance which you have stated, you have failed to demonstrate your endeavor's national importance. 
Evidence to establish that the beneficiary’s proposed endeavor has national importance consists of, but is not limited top th fo lowing

•   A detailed description of the proposed endeavor and why it is of national importance,
•   Documentary evidence that supports the petitioner’s statements and establishes the endeavor’s national importance. Such evidence must demonstrate the endeavor’s potential prospective impact, and may consist of, but is not limited to, evidence showing that the proposed endeavor:
o  Has national or even global implications within a particular field;
o  Has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area;
o   Will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment; andImpacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives.

补充内容 (2023-10-12 21:58 +08:00):

Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 


Please submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
 
The petitioner provided a several letters of suppon. The letters provide details about the petitioner’s research findings or results. For example, the authors talk about the beneficiary's citation record as a basis of influence in the field. The authors fail to provide evidence of this claim, or to show the beneficiary's work used in the field.
 
The authors claim the petitioner’s findings have influenced the field, but they failed to provide specific examples of how the petitioner’s findings influence the field or industry beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge.
 
The petitioner provided citations to his work. However, there is no evidence in the record that distinguishes how many of these citations are independent, as opposed to self-citations. The petitioner did not offer comparative statistics indicating how often other individuals in the field are cited. Without this evidence, it cannot prove that the petitioner’s citation record is indicative of a record of success or otherwise demonstrate he is well positioned to advance
his proposed endeavor.


The petitioner submitted review articles and contend that the review articles demonstrate that other researchers have followed, adopted, and implemented his work. However, a review article summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic and summarizes previously published studies, rather than reporting new facts or analysis. While the review articles discuss the petitioner's work, they do not explain the impact or influence that the petitioner's work had on the field. Furthermore, as review articles only summarize research they cannot demonstrate implementation or adoption of the petitioner's work. As such, the review articles cannot establish that the petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.

补充内容 (2023-10-12 21:59 +08:00):

Labor Certification 
 
Please submit evidence to establish that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. This balance was described in Dhanasar as on one hand protecting the domestic labor supply through the creation of the labor certification process, while on the other hand recognizing that in certain cases the benefits inherent in the labor certification process can be outweighed by other factors that are also deemed to be in the national interest.
 
The petitioner has not established that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence that his knowledge or skills are not easily articulated in a labor certification, he has not demonstrated, as claimed, that he presents benefits to the United States through his proposed endeavor that outweigh those inherent in the labor certification process. In addition, the petitioner has not shown that he offers contributions of such value that, over all, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available.

补充内容 (2023-10-12 22:11 +08:00):

洋洋洒洒一大篇RFE 我都补充在上面了，NIW的3点都被认为证据不足：
1、National Importance：没有解释出AI对美国的重要性，没有证明广泛的影响，没有证明超越了其他人；感觉是我在描述我的领域重要性的时候还不够强烈？我理解这部分需要重点改一下请愿书
2、Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor：推荐信不够有说服力，没有提供具体的例子--打算重写推荐信并且再加几个独立推荐人，推荐信能重写吗？
引用没有拆分出独立引用，没有对比他人的应用，--这个好办 按IO说的搞就行 拆独立引用  对比同行的平均水平
3、Labor Certification：这个邮电难搞，说得很泛泛，我理解是前2点不够好 推断3也不好，是不是把前2点解决了，3就迎刃而解了？怎么说明放弃劳工证是有益美国的呢 ？愁


大家的RFE都是这么长吗？心都凉了，够我battle好久了


最后， IO是  XM2150  在哪里查是不是killer?

我跟你拿到的rfe内容一模一样，我还在补rfe。可能lz的niw模板太笼统了？这是我唯一能想到被拒的理由。虽然lz已经大大超越了niw需要的标准，但不排除IO就是鸡蛋里挑骨头。。。

补充内容 (2023-10-17 12:48 +08:00):

LZ你要是想的化可以把NIW的材料发给我，我帮你看看是咋回事。

看见地里有dp, 说是律师建议最近不要pp

1234567rtyu 发表于 2023-10-19 11:21
怀疑你跟我是同一个officer。。。跟你完全一样的情况，交上去第二天就rfe，三个全challenge，真的跪了。现 ...

啊不好意思刚刚看到你写了officer号，不是同一个，不过我们情况确实一样。祝楼主顺利通过！

pat pat 会迎刃而解的，祝楼主好运，顺便插个眼。

背景这么强！

补充内容 (2023-09-25 13:46 +08:00):
这不eb1

email是看不到具体内容的，纸质的才可以。背景很强，估计再补充推荐信。

关注一下，也祝楼主好运

别慌别慌 你这都能上Eb1a了

你的背景很强啊。我感觉被质疑的是一些非硬件条件。等RFE纸质下来再看看。

楼主有后续吗

这都没过。。。。天理难容啊！楼主加油！好好补充材料。