AAO found that while the Petitioner's proposed residential construction work has substantial merit, he failed to show that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of 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 found that while the Petitioner's proposed residential construction work has substantial merit, he failed to show that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner's activities are localized to Florida, the claimed job creation was not adequately documented (e.g., it is implausible that six residential homes required two ongoing land surveyors), and there was insufficient evidence of substantial positive economic effects for the region or nation.
AAO found the credential evaluation did not analyze the Petitioner's specific foreign education and the AACRAO EDGE database indicated her degree was equivalent only to a U.S. bachelor's. Additionally, her degree was awarded in January 2015 and the petition was filed in August 2018, leaving less than five years of possible post-baccalaureate experience, precluding the alternative advanced degree showing.
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 credential evaluation did not analyze the Petitioner's specific foreign education and the AACRAO EDGE database indicated her degree was equivalent only to a U.S. bachelor's. Additionally, her degree was awarded in January 2015 and the petition was filed in August 2018, leaving less than five years of possible post-baccalaureate experience, precluding the alternative advanced degree showing.
The Petitioner waived the national importance issue by not challenging it on appeal. AAO also independently agreed the endeavor lacked national importance, as it would not broadly impact U.S. healthcare interests or provide substantial positive economic effects, analogous to the teaching activities found insufficient in Dhanasar itself.
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 Petitioner waived the national importance issue by not challenging it on appeal. AAO also independently agreed the endeavor lacked national importance, as it would not broadly impact U.S. healthcare interests or provide substantial positive economic effects, analogous to the teaching activities found insufficient in Dhanasar itself.
AAO found that the Petitioner's expertise and training relate to the second prong but that, because the proposed endeavor itself was not sufficiently identified, it was impossible to conclude that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.
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 expertise and training relate to the second prong but that, because the proposed endeavor itself was not sufficiently identified, it was impossible to conclude that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to clearly identify a specific proposed endeavor, noting he presented background information on a variety of distinct IT occupations without specifying whether his proposed work involves consulting, developing, engineering, managing, or some combination. Without a sufficiently identified endeavor, neither its merit nor its national importance can be assessed.
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 that the Petitioner failed to clearly identify a specific proposed endeavor, noting he presented background information on a variety of distinct IT occupations without specifying whether his proposed work involves consulting, developing, engineering, managing, or some combination. Without a sufficiently identified endeavor, neither its merit nor its national importance can be assessed.
published material about the alien in certain media
裁决如何说明
AAO noted that the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding on this criterion and did not offer additional arguments on appeal, so the issue is considered abandoned.
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 noted that the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding on this criterion and did not offer additional arguments on appeal, so the issue is considered abandoned.
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments
裁决如何说明
AAO explicitly reserved this criterion as unnecessary to reach, because the Petitioner could not satisfy the threshold requirement of meeting at least three criteria regardless of the outcome on this prong.
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 explicitly reserved this criterion as unnecessary to reach, because the Petitioner could not satisfy the threshold requirement of meeting at least three criteria regardless of the outcome on this prong.
The Petitioner proposed many vague ideas for IT work without identifying a specific endeavor. His past successes benefited individual employers and clients but did not demonstrate broader field-level or national impact. Recommendation letters and the expert opinion letter were conclusory and insufficiently corroborated.
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 Petitioner proposed many vague ideas for IT work without identifying a specific endeavor. His past successes benefited individual employers and clients but did not demonstrate broader field-level or national impact. Recommendation letters and the expert opinion letter were conclusory and insufficiently corroborated.