|
如何准备支持EB1A, EB1B, EB2NIW
申请专家推荐信是申请能否成功的重要环节之一。我们律师事务所近年来经常帮助客户收到移民局超乎寻常的快速批准，其经验之一，是帮助我们的客户按照申请类别的法律要求，严谨地准备专家推荐信。
例如，我们一位客户的EB2NIW 申请，2009年3月14日
移民局德州服务中心收到支持申请的证据材料，4月29日发出批准书，全程仅1个月零15天。而且，该申请并非属于超强申请。很多博士后和研究人员都具备相似资历和成果。该申请人的专业研究领域为Molecular
biology and biochemistry of membrane proteins involved
in human diseases such as congestive heart failure and
Helicobacter pylori infection.
学士，硕士，博士学位均在其他国家获得，没有美国学位。递交申请时为某大学博士后，发表5篇专业刊物文章，并有4
篇专业会议Presentations. 其文章被其他研究人员引用40 余次。没有审稿，媒体报道等其他证据。
在申请准备中，我们根据长期经验，特别注重帮助该申请人准备专家推荐信。包括如下要点。
1：推荐信并非多多益善
几乎每位客户和与我们联系潜在绿卡申请人都提出这一问题：需要准备多少封推荐信？
当我们作法律研究时，找到一个AAO [美国移民局上诉办公室]决定。该EB2NIW 申请人提交了150
封推荐信。AAO 特别指出，推荐信并非
“多多益善“。我们的经验是，过多的推荐信可能延长申请准备时间。而且，每封推荐信的构成容易过于空洞，疏简。试想，如果提供150
封推荐信，想使每封推荐信都做到有理有据地表述专家意见是非常困难的。
支持绿卡申请的专家推荐信和帮助Ph.D.
学生或博士后申请经费或求职的推荐信迥然不同。支持绿卡申请的专家推荐信属于法律程序中的“专家意见”。因此，每封信必须有其严谨的结构并根据证据法原则对EB1A,
EB1B, 或EB2NIW 的法律要求逐一提出专家意见。这些意见不应是空洞的结论，而应该有具体事实支持。
4月29日ＥＢ２ＮＩＷ 申请案中，我们帮助申请人准备了仅仅５封专家推荐信。该案仅１个月１５天便顺利批准。
2：推荐人应“多元化”[Diversified]
我们还特别注意帮助客户选择提供推荐信的专家，使我们每一客户的推荐人多元化。因为我们长期的法律研究揭示，移民局认为多元化的推荐人对绿卡申请人的评价会比较客观。因此，我们为客户提供如何准备绿卡申请的建议时一个重要程序是帮助我们的客户选择多元化的推荐人。
使推荐人多元化包括许多因素。其中比较常见得问题是绿卡申请人趋向于寻找本民族的专家提供推荐信。例如，中国申请人常常提供许多中国姓氏的专家作为推荐人。虽然他们中有些已经成为美国公民，甚至出生于美国，但是过多的本民族姓氏推荐人不能给移民官多元化的印象，容易引起移民官对专家意见客观性的质疑。
3：专家推荐信内容要做到有理有据
专家推荐信的内容是更为重要的。每一专家推荐信要有理有据。
此“理”非学术之“理”。支持绿卡申请的推荐信要避免写成短篇专业论文。因为支持绿卡申请的推荐信并非要论证专业命题，
而是要论证绿卡申请人符合其申请类别的法律条件。因此，在形成此类推荐信的构架之前，必须首先明确绿卡申请人所提交的申请类别和该类别的法律要求。这些法律要求是该信之“理”。
“据”为“理”的支撑。仅有理，没有据，推荐信就空洞无力，不能提供移民官批准该案的理由。
“理”与“据”的统一必须严谨。这需要律师根据长期经验和深入研究，帮助申请人建立一套具体方案，并在准备推荐信时付诸实施。
AAO
在2007 年2月发布了这样一个EB2NIW 否决案例，耐人寻味。该申请被Nebraska Service
Center 否决，提交上诉。AAO 支持 NSC
否决意见。该申请人获得航天工程博士学位，并在液压动力领域做出贡献。AAO
对于其专家推荐信中对其工作对国家利益的影响论述如下：“Specifically, the
petitioner's references attest to aerospace, biomedical,
military (naval defense) and commercial applications of
the petitioner's
work.”而该案律师在申请中则特别强调该申请人的研究对研究火山爆发和防范“tsunami
research＂的应用价值。
但是，移民局上诉办公室的结论是，这些推荐信仅仅声称申请人工作对国家利益的积极影响，而并没有提供使人信服的具体证据证明申请人工作对国家利益有积极影响的例证。所以，移民局上诉办公室支持否决该申。
以下是该ＡＡＯ决定中的相关引文，仅供有兴趣读者参考。
“After
obtaining his Ph.D., the petitioner worked in the
laboratory of Dr. [IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED BY
AGENCY], an assistant professor at the University of
Michigan. During this time, the petitioner focused on
numerical simulation of polymer flows and breaking
waves. This work was funded by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval
Research (ONR). Dr. [IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED BY
AGENCY] asserts that this work led to a conference paper
and a paper currently under review for publication but
does not identify specific results or explain how the
petitioner's results are significant and influential.
The
petitioner then joined the laboratory of Dr.
[IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED BY AGENCY] an
assistant professor at the University of Michigan.
There, the petitioner investigated wave breaking “on the
ocean surface.” Neither Dr. [IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
REDACTED BY AGENCY] the petitioner nor any other
reference assert that surface wave breaking research is
applicable to tsunamis, which, according to the article
submitted on appeal, travel below the surface. Dr.
[IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED BY AGENCY]i explains
that the project is important because the “understanding
of mixing processes inducted by large amplitude internal
wave breaking is far way from complete, and such a
nonlinear process has to be correctly modeled for a
better prediction of ocean circulation and therefore
climate.” Dr. [IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED BY
AGENCY] speculates that this work “will be of value,”
but does not identify any significant results already
obtained by the petitioner.
Finally, [IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REDACTED BY AGENCY],
Professor Emeritus at University of Michigan, reiterates
the assertions made by the other references. He
concludes that the petitioner's Ph.D. thesis is very
important, but provides no examples of its influence in
the field. He further concludes that the petitioner's
wave breaking research “can have important practical
applications, as for example in the improvement in the
design of ships to withstand severe storms.” ［．．．］
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that
letters containing mere assertions of government or
commercial interest and positive response in the field
are less persuasive than letters that provide specific
examples of how the petitioner has influenced the field.
In addition, letters from independent references who
were previously aware of the petitioner through his
reputation and who have applied his work are the most
persuasive letters. The petitioner did not submit any
letters from professionals beyond his immediate circle
of collaborators at the University of Michigan.
ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed.
Robert P. Wiemann
Chief
Administrative Appeals Office”
欢迎有兴趣申请绿卡的读者和我们联系。本律师事务所提供首次免费评估。请电邮寄履历和自我介绍及联系方式。Email联系：alicesunlaw@gmail.com.
officeofsun@yahoo.com
我们的移民服务网站也载有更多信息：http://www.sunlawfirm.us
联系人信息：
Alice
H. Sun (Member of American Immigration Lawyers
Association)
Law Offices of Sun
12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: (310) 481-6118
Fax: (310) 481-6117
alicesunlaw@gmail.com or officeofsun@yahoo.com
http://www.sunlawfirm.us
本文全文受版权保护。如果转载，必须写明我们律师事务所的名称，地址，电话号，传真号，电子邮件信箱和网站地址。本律师事务所保留追究版权侵权法律责任和赔偿的权利。
以上为撰稿人对美国移民法的个人理解和解释，不是对个案的法律咨询，也不可以作为
法律依据。
|
