Documentation establishes employment in the engineering field since 2004, and a 2016 award letter recognized ten years of service. Though full-time status was not explicit, by preponderance the criterion was satisfied.
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 +
Documentation establishes employment in the engineering field since 2004, and a 2016 award letter recognized ten years of service. Though full-time status was not explicit, by preponderance the criterion was satisfied.
The equivalency evaluation was unsigned, did not reference the petitioner's transcripts among its source materials, and lacked any analysis of the petitioner's academic record. The employment evidence was not in the required format under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), did not describe duties or employment dates, and failed to establish the progressive nature of the work.
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 equivalency evaluation was unsigned, did not reference the petitioner's transcripts among its source materials, and lacked any analysis of the petitioner's academic record. The employment evidence was not in the required format under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), did not describe duties or employment dates, and failed to establish the progressive nature of the work.
High salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner submitted salary evidence but provided no comparative data showing his compensation exceeds that of other chemical engineers in the same geographic area and industry.
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 submitted salary evidence but provided no comparative data showing his compensation exceeds that of other chemical engineers in the same geographic area and industry.
AAO declined to consider the Petitioner's post-filing employment positions because eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and declined to consider a new reference letter not submitted in response to the RFE. AAO found the Petitioner did not address the Director's specific findings or identify erroneous conclusions of law.
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 declined to consider the Petitioner's post-filing employment positions because eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and declined to consider a new reference letter not submitted in response to the RFE. AAO found the Petitioner did not address the Director's specific findings or identify erroneous conclusions of law.