on balance, beneficial to waive job offer and labor certification
裁决如何说明
AAO explicitly reserved its opinion on the third Dhanasar prong because the first prong was not met, making resolution of the third prong unnecessary to the outcome.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO explicitly reserved its opinion on the third Dhanasar prong because the first prong was not met, making resolution of the third prong unnecessary to the outcome.
AAO held that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) requires a single degree or foreign equivalent to a U.S. degree; it does not allow combining two individually insufficient credentials to manufacture an equivalent. The credentials evaluation submitted was not a credible new fact supporting advanced degree qualification.
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 that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) requires a single degree or foreign equivalent to a U.S. degree; it does not allow combining two individually insufficient credentials to manufacture an equivalent. The credentials evaluation submitted was not a credible new fact supporting advanced degree qualification.
high salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
AAO 为什么未被说服
The accountant's letter did not address the comparative evidence needed to show the Petitioner's remuneration demonstrates exceptional ability relative to others in software development. The income data showed a significant decrease from 2018 to 2019 and was below average, undermining the claim. The 2020 tax return was ineligible because eligibility must be established at the time of filing (2019).…
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 accountant's letter did not address the comparative evidence needed to show the Petitioner's remuneration demonstrates exceptional ability relative to others in software development. The income data showed a significant decrease from 2018 to 2019 and was below average, undermining the claim. The 2020 tax return was ineligible because eligibility must be established at the time of filing (2019). Conflating income from software development and business ownership was also rejected.
AAO found that the Petitioner's letters showed high regard for her work but did not establish national importance. Her success would be limited to patients and employers she serves, without broader implications for the nursing field or U.S. healthcare. The Petitioner provided no evidence of economic impact, job creation, or original innovations with broader field implications.
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 that the Petitioner's letters showed high regard for her work but did not establish national importance. Her success would be limited to patients and employers she serves, without broader implications for the nursing field or U.S. healthcare. The Petitioner provided no evidence of economic impact, job creation, or original innovations with broader field implications.
AAO agreed with the Director that while the projects show merit, the record does not document potential prospective impact at a national level. The Petitioner's evidence describes how the projects work and identifies clients and investors, but does not show national or global implications within a field, significant employment potential, or substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance.
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 agreed with the Director that while the projects show merit, the record does not document potential prospective impact at a national level. The Petitioner's evidence describes how the projects work and identifies clients and investors, but does not show national or global implications within a field, significant employment potential, or substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance.
While the record supports substantial merit of IT work generally, the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence that his proposed job duties in project leadership or systems coordination would impact his field broadly rather than merely benefiting his employer or their clients. His past work, peer letters, and general IT industry articles do not demonstrate the prospective national impact required under Dhanasar.
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 +
While the record supports substantial merit of IT work generally, the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence that his proposed job duties in project leadership or systems coordination would impact his field broadly rather than merely benefiting his employer or their clients. His past work, peer letters, and general IT industry articles do not demonstrate the prospective national impact required under Dhanasar.
The AAO found that while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, it lacks national importance. The Petitioner's statements reflected general intent to develop 20 housing units in a Florida city; he did not show his plans would impact the real estate field more broadly, provide substantial economic effects nationally, or demonstrate that the area is economically depressed or that his staffing levels would s…
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 that while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, it lacks national importance. The Petitioner's statements reflected general intent to develop 20 housing units in a Florida city; he did not show his plans would impact the real estate field more broadly, provide substantial economic effects nationally, or demonstrate that the area is economically depressed or that his staffing levels would substantially affect economic activity.
AAO had previously found national importance lacking; the new evidence on motion either restated prior facts verbatim or addressed post-filing-date activities, and no legal error was identified in the prior decision. Therefore, the Petitioner still failed to establish national importance.
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 had previously found national importance lacking; the new evidence on motion either restated prior facts verbatim or addressed post-filing-date activities, and no legal error was identified in the prior decision. Therefore, the Petitioner still failed to establish national importance.
AAO found that the Petitioner's training and experience was incomplete or had yet to occur at the time the petition was filed in 2018. New evidence submitted on motion all post-dates the filing and cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing. The Petitioner's argument that he had reached the zenith of his educational pursuit and had a well-delineated plan was not persuasive.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that the Petitioner's training and experience was incomplete or had yet to occur at the time the petition was filed in 2018. New evidence submitted on motion all post-dates the filing and cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing. The Petitioner's argument that he had reached the zenith of his educational pursuit and had a well-delineated plan was not persuasive.
AAO had previously found (and reaffirms here) that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. This prong is not in dispute on the present motion.
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 had previously found (and reaffirms here) that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. This prong is not in dispute on the present motion.