RFE 质疑「具有重大意义的原创性贡献」标准时会怎么写

“USCIS acknowledges that the patent applications support that you have had original scientific contributions in the field. Although, having your ideas or inventions patented does not establish how these same contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of science (technology).”

USCIS 认可这些专利申请能够证明你在该领域做出了原创性的科学贡献。但是，你的想法或发明获得专利，并不能证明这些贡献在该科学（技术）领域具有重大意义。

该案例在补件回应后获批。

把这两句话分开来读：原创性被认可了，重大意义没有。"具有重大意义的原创性贡献"是一个并列短语，只有后半句存疑。回应时补更多专利，等于在论证已经成立的那一半。能补上这个缺口的是"被采用"的证据——还有谁在用它、因为它这个领域发生了什么改变。

“You submitted letters of support, but the submission of solicited letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. USCIS may in its discretion use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert witnesses, but we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination of the beneficiary's eligibility.”

你提交了支持信，但主动征集来支持申请书的信函并不构成资格的推定证据。USCIS 可以自行决定将这类信函作为专家证人出具的咨询意见参考，但对受益人资格做出最终认定的责任始终在我们。

该案例在补件回应后获批。

推荐信并没有被完全否定，只是被降格成了"咨询意见"。用补更多信函来回应这条驳回，答的是错误的问题。移民官要的是不依赖于某个人主观看法的证据。

“It is noted that you presented your work at conferences, yet this does not demonstrate original contributions, because there is no way to determine a conference paper's originality or influence on the field. However, highly cited publications and widely utilized patents do objectively illustrate originality and contributions in the field.”

注意到你在学术会议上展示过你的成果，但这不能证明原创性贡献，因为无法判断一篇会议论文的原创性或对该领域的影响。然而，高被引的出版物与被广泛使用的专利能够客观地展示原创性与贡献。

该案例在补件回应后获批。

移民官在同一段话里直接点出了什么才能满足要求：引用数量和真正被使用的专利。这句话基本上就是给回应信定的规格书。

“It is also noted that you submitted evidence of copyright registrations, but you are not named on the copyright registrations. Therefore they do not hold any probative value to show that you meet this criterion.”

还注意到你提交了版权登记证据，但版权登记上具名的并非你本人。因此这些材料不具备证明你满足本标准的证明力。

该案例在补件回应后获批。

跟"获奖"标准里同样的"文件上具名的是谁"问题，换了个场景又出现了一次。当同一封 RFE 里这个问题出现两次时，值得把整份申请材料里的每一份证据都核一遍署名。