advanced degree or equivalent (five years progressive experience)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the company formation records and Articles of Association amendments do not satisfy the regulatory requirement for employer letters under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), and that work as a physical education teacher and soccer referee does not relate to the specialty of entrepreneurship.
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 that the company formation records and Articles of Association amendments do not satisfy the regulatory requirement for employer letters under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), and that work as a physical education teacher and soccer referee does not relate to the specialty of entrepreneurship.
None of the documents submitted by the Petitioner specifically identified the petition or Beneficiary for which the filing fee was being paid. The check was dated more than two months before the petition was filed, lacked any DHS or Treasury marking confirming receipt and deposit, and a USCIS refund letter to the Beneficiary confirmed the petition was revoked for a bounced check.…
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 +
None of the documents submitted by the Petitioner specifically identified the petition or Beneficiary for which the filing fee was being paid. The check was dated more than two months before the petition was filed, lacked any DHS or Treasury marking confirming receipt and deposit, and a USCIS refund letter to the Beneficiary confirmed the petition was revoked for a bounced check. The Petitioner failed to reconcile these evidentiary inconsistencies.
AAO independently reviewed the record and concluded that section 204(c) applies because there is substantial and probative evidence the marriage lacked bona fides. The Petitioner failed to address the District Director's specific evidentiary findings from the I-130 proceeding, submitted only bare affidavits without new substantive evidence, and did not adequately explain the lack of the Beneficiary's possessions in the shar…
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 independently reviewed the record and concluded that section 204(c) applies because there is substantial and probative evidence the marriage lacked bona fides. The Petitioner failed to address the District Director's specific evidentiary findings from the I-130 proceeding, submitted only bare affidavits without new substantive evidence, and did not adequately explain the lack of the Beneficiary's possessions in the shared residence or his extended absences.
AAO does not reach the ultimate final merits question because the Director's analysis was incomplete; AAO only notes it may agree that the 2007 judging activity is not indicative of acclaim, but the remaining criteria evidence must still be weighed.
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 does not reach the ultimate final merits question because the Director's analysis was incomplete; AAO only notes it may agree that the 2007 judging activity is not indicative of acclaim, but the remaining criteria evidence must still be weighed.
All evidence submitted on appeal was dated after the December 2018 petition filing date and therefore could not establish eligibility. Even if considered, the business plan lacked sufficient detail to show the endeavor would significantly employ U.S. workers, and the articles and advisory council invitation did not address how the specific endeavor would produce substantial positive economic effects at the national level.
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 +
All evidence submitted on appeal was dated after the December 2018 petition filing date and therefore could not establish eligibility. Even if considered, the business plan lacked sufficient detail to show the endeavor would significantly employ U.S. workers, and the articles and advisory council invitation did not address how the specific endeavor would produce substantial positive economic effects at the national level.
The AAO agreed with the Director that the purchase orders and invoices were insufficient to establish the Petitioner's personal earnings because they did not reflect compensation to the Petitioner specifically, and there was no verifiable tax documentation or other evidence confirming actual remuneration received.
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 AAO agreed with the Director that the purchase orders and invoices were insufficient to establish the Petitioner's personal earnings because they did not reflect compensation to the Petitioner specifically, and there was no verifiable tax documentation or other evidence confirming actual remuneration received.
While the AAO found sufficient evidence that the Petitioner held a leading or critical role in the company, the record lacked independent documentary evidence establishing that the company itself had a distinguished reputation. Client testimonial letters and press articles spoke to the Petitioner's personal reputation, not the company's.
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 +
While the AAO found sufficient evidence that the Petitioner held a leading or critical role in the company, the record lacked independent documentary evidence establishing that the company itself had a distinguished reputation. Client testimonial letters and press articles spoke to the Petitioner's personal reputation, not the company's.