RFE 质疑「评审他人工作」标准时会怎么写

“Here, the phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). ... Initial evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary is "recognized in the field of expertise", so the regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of evaluating subordinate employees or products.”

在这里，"评审人"一词意味着以评审身份被正式指定，无论是作为评审团成员还是个人评审，均须符合 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 的规定。……初步证据必须证明受益人"在该专业领域内获得认可"，因此本条规定不能被解读为涵盖所有非正式地评估下属员工或产品的情形。

该案例在补件回应后获批。

移民官在这里预先堵住了这条标准最常见的过度解读——把内部绩效评估或产品评测算作"评审他人的工作"。如果你的证据属于这一类，补更多同类材料也无济于事。

“You submitted evidence that you were a judge. However, the evidence does not appear to show that your judging was in your field of endeavor of [job title]. ... Without substantive evidence of your participation as a judge of the work of others in your field ... or an allied field which is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim, USCIS cannot conclude that you meet this criterion.”

你提交了证明你担任评审人的证据。但证据似乎并未表明你的评审工作属于你 [职位名称] 的专业领域。……在没有充分证据证明你在自己领域——或与"持续获得国家级或国际级声誉"相一致的相邻领域——评审他人工作的情况下，USCIS 无法认定你满足本标准。

该案例在补件回应后获批。

移民官承认了评审行为本身存在，只是在"领域是否对得上"这一点上否掉了它。注意这里对"专业领域"的解读有多窄——它被死死钉在申请书里写的职位名称上。如果申请书对领域的界定过窄，正确的修补方向可能是在全案范围内统一重新界定领域，而不是去找更多评审经历。