membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
裁决如何说明
The Petitioner did not meaningfully contest SCOPS' finding on appeal, repeating only the same arguments and documents without identifying how SCOPS erred. The issue is therefore waived.
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 Petitioner did not meaningfully contest SCOPS' finding on appeal, repeating only the same arguments and documents without identifying how SCOPS erred. The issue is therefore waived.
The Petitioner did not assert this criterion in the record below and did not provide the promised evidence on appeal, so eligibility under this criterion is waived.
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 Petitioner did not assert this criterion in the record below and did not provide the promised evidence on appeal, so eligibility under this criterion is waived.
AAO found that the evidence relied on the general importance of small business and Latino entrepreneurship rather than showing how the Petitioner's specific company would have national-level impact, and that revenue/wage projections were unsupported by methodology or independent evidence.…
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 evidence relied on the general importance of small business and Latino entrepreneurship rather than showing how the Petitioner's specific company would have national-level impact, and that revenue/wage projections were unsupported by methodology or independent evidence. Support letters used vague, generalized language and the business plan failed to specify methodologies or tools or to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects.
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner failed to submit objective evidence of the publications' relative circulation, readership, or viewership despite an RFE requesting it. The claimed documentary proof referenced on appeal was not in the record.
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 Petitioner failed to submit objective evidence of the publications' relative circulation, readership, or viewership despite an RFE requesting it. The claimed documentary proof referenced on appeal was not in the record.