The Petitioner did not provide sufficient information showing her proposed endeavor would impact her field or the health industry broadly, employ U.S. workers, or produce substantial positive economic effects.
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 did not provide sufficient information showing her proposed endeavor would impact her field or the health industry broadly, employ U.S. workers, or produce substantial positive economic effects.
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business
裁决如何说明
Because the Director never analyzed the exceptional-ability criteria, AAO declines to reach the issue itself and remands for the Director to evaluate it in the first instance.
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 Director never analyzed the exceptional-ability criteria, AAO declines to reach the issue itself and remands for the Director to evaluate it in the first instance.
AAO concludes the Director impermissibly evaluated prong one against a materially changed endeavor; the proper endeavor on remand is the original military-instructor endeavor, and the post-RFE endeavor evidence cannot be considered.
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 concludes the Director impermissibly evaluated prong one against a materially changed endeavor; the proper endeavor on remand is the original military-instructor endeavor, and the post-RFE endeavor evidence cannot be considered.
AAO held the Petitioner accumulated only four years and five months of post-baccalaureate experience as of filing, short of the five-year regulatory requirement, and the employer letter inadequately documented progressive duties; AAO withdrew the Director's contrary 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 held the Petitioner accumulated only four years and five months of post-baccalaureate experience as of filing, short of the five-year regulatory requirement, and the employer letter inadequately documented progressive duties; AAO withdrew the Director's contrary finding.
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that while the experience letters appeared conclusory standing alone, the Petitioner supplemented them with additional evidence (provost declarations itemizing courses and hours, reference letters discussing supervisory responsibilities) that provided the specific detail required under the regulation. Taken in totality, the record established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
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 while the experience letters appeared conclusory standing alone, the Petitioner supplemented them with additional evidence (provost declarations itemizing courses and hours, reference letters discussing supervisory responsibilities) that provided the specific detail required under the regulation. Taken in totality, the record established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
AAO reserved the Petitioner's policy-based challenge to Kazarian because it had already concluded the Petitioner had not shown a misapplication of law or USCIS policy in finding she failed to meet three criteria.
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 reserved the Petitioner's policy-based challenge to Kazarian because it had already concluded the Petitioner had not shown a misapplication of law or USCIS policy in finding she failed to meet three criteria.