at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that neither the letter from the co-founder (who did not state whether the Petitioner worked full time) nor the letter from the Petitioner's own accountant (who was his employee, not employer) satisfied the plain-language requirements of the criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's finding.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that neither the letter from the co-founder (who did not state whether the Petitioner worked full time) nor the letter from the Petitioner's own accountant (who was his employee, not employer) satisfied the plain-language requirements of the criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's finding.
AAO remanded because the Chief did not analyze the Petitioner's evidence distinguishing the management company from the NCE and provided insufficient specificity under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i); the Chief should also weigh the SEC fraud allegations on remand.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO remanded because the Chief did not analyze the Petitioner's evidence distinguishing the management company from the NCE and provided insufficient specificity under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i); the Chief should also weigh the SEC fraud allegations on remand.
AAO remanded because the Chief did not adequately explain how Matter of Izummi (a regional center holding-company case) applies to this pooled-investment NCE, and the cited inconsistencies bear more on business-plan credibility under Matter of Ho.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO remanded because the Chief did not adequately explain how Matter of Izummi (a regional center holding-company case) applies to this pooled-investment NCE, and the cited inconsistencies bear more on business-plan credibility under Matter of Ho.
The AAO found the Petitioner failed to show his specific consulting venture would operate on a scale of national importance. The business plan's projection of 14 cumulative jobs by year five lacked sufficient basis and did not demonstrate impact beyond the business's immediate area of operations. General claims about environmental compliance, trade balance, and job creation were unsubstantiated.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The AAO found the Petitioner failed to show his specific consulting venture would operate on a scale of national importance. The business plan's projection of 14 cumulative jobs by year five lacked sufficient basis and did not demonstrate impact beyond the business's immediate area of operations. General claims about environmental compliance, trade balance, and job creation were unsubstantiated.
AAO found the Petitioner's documented earnings exceeded the average but fell below the 'high' salary range in most surveys submitted. The Petitioner's 50% threshold argument lacked evidentiary support, the salary data comparisons were of questionable validity, and no contemporaneous 2015 comparative salary data was provided.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Petitioner's documented earnings exceeded the average but fell below the 'high' salary range in most surveys submitted. The Petitioner's 50% threshold argument lacked evidentiary support, the salary data comparisons were of questionable validity, and no contemporaneous 2015 comparative salary data was provided.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
Because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that she failed the first element (leading or critical role), that issue was waived. On the distinguished reputation element, AAO found that self-attesting company letters and general website information were insufficient; the Petitioner also failed to distinguish her employer from the ~13,000 similar lottery houses in Brazil.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that she failed the first element (leading or critical role), that issue was waived. On the distinguished reputation element, AAO found that self-attesting company letters and general website information were insufficient; the Petitioner also failed to distinguish her employer from the ~13,000 similar lottery houses in Brazil.
Enrollment in Brazil's regional psychology councils is compulsory for anyone wishing to practice as a professional psychologist, not reserved for those with outstanding achievements. The exclusion of persons with ethical violations does not transform the membership into one requiring outstanding achievement.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Enrollment in Brazil's regional psychology councils is compulsory for anyone wishing to practice as a professional psychologist, not reserved for those with outstanding achievements. The exclusion of persons with ethical violations does not transform the membership into one requiring outstanding achievement.
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the association requires its members to possess the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, meaning it does not qualify as a professional association within the meaning of the regulations.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the association requires its members to possess the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, meaning it does not qualify as a professional association within the meaning of the regulations.
salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Previdentiary Extract, income statements, and professional experience statements lacked corroboration from independent objective evidence such as invoices, bank statements, or tax returns. The Salario BR screenshot lacked critical information to verify reliability. Furthermore, comparing sales consultant earnings to managing partner income is an improper basis for comparison as they are distinct occupations.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The Previdentiary Extract, income statements, and professional experience statements lacked corroboration from independent objective evidence such as invoices, bank statements, or tax returns. The Salario BR screenshot lacked critical information to verify reliability. Furthermore, comparing sales consultant earnings to managing partner income is an improper basis for comparison as they are distinct occupations.
AAO found the Petitioner did not explain how a government-issued card constitutes membership in a professional association, nor did she establish that obtaining the card required demonstrating outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts. The relevant law only required proof of qualification for the profession.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Petitioner did not explain how a government-issued card constitutes membership in a professional association, nor did she establish that obtaining the card required demonstrating outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts. The relevant law only required proof of qualification for the profession.