AAO found the Director erred because the regulatory definition requires post-baccalaureate experience to be 'in the specialty.' The Petitioner's degree is in tourism management but his work experience has been in the pharmaceutical industry as a sales representative, which does not satisfy the specialty requirement.
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 Director erred because the regulatory definition requires post-baccalaureate experience to be 'in the specialty.' The Petitioner's degree is in tourism management but his work experience has been in the pharmaceutical industry as a sales representative, which does not satisfy the specialty requirement.
AAO did not reach the merits of this prong, remanding for the Director to first resolve the proposed-endeavor identity question and then conduct the Dhanasar analysis.
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 +
AAO did not reach the merits of this prong, remanding for the Director to first resolve the proposed-endeavor identity question and then conduct the Dhanasar analysis.
Final merits determination: degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that educational credentials and memberships reflect only minimum qualifications; the 2006 paper's citations lacked evidence of significance; some citations came from co-authors or were critical of the study; new appeal evidence was rejected as untimely; and reference letters were conclusory, praising the Petitioner without explaining how his work elevates him above peers.
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 that educational credentials and memberships reflect only minimum qualifications; the 2006 paper's citations lacked evidence of significance; some citations came from co-authors or were critical of the study; new appeal evidence was rejected as untimely; and reference letters were conclusory, praising the Petitioner without explaining how his work elevates him above peers.
AAO found substantial merit established but concluded the endeavor lacked national importance because it would not impact the field or industry broadly, would not have significant potential to employ U.S. workers in an economically depressed area, and would not produce substantial positive economic effects nationally.
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 +
AAO found substantial merit established but concluded the endeavor lacked national importance because it would not impact the field or industry broadly, would not have significant potential to employ U.S. workers in an economically depressed area, and would not produce substantial positive economic effects nationally.
AAO held the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim. Awards and recognition were attributed to his company, were limited to a four-year period of his career, and salary comparisons were unsupported by reliable surveys.
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 held the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim. Awards and recognition were attributed to his company, were limited to a four-year period of his career, and salary comparisons were unsupported by reliable surveys.
AAO found the petitioner did not provide transcriptions of the video/radio coverage and did not establish that the television shows or radio program represented a major medium.
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 provide transcriptions of the video/radio coverage and did not establish that the television shows or radio program represented a major medium.
AAO agreed with the Director that the record as a whole — considering judging experience, publication record, leading roles, award, membership, media coverage, and salary — did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
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 agreed with the Director that the record as a whole — considering judging experience, publication record, leading roles, award, membership, media coverage, and salary — did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.