high remuneration in relation to others in the field
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that the Petitioner's total remuneration — including an annual salary of about HK$ 6.8 million and profit-sharing payments of approximately HK$ 2.87–3.1 million — was significantly higher than average accounting professionals in Hong Kong, meeting this criterion.
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 the Petitioner's total remuneration — including an annual salary of about HK$ 6.8 million and profit-sharing payments of approximately HK$ 2.87–3.1 million — was significantly higher than average accounting professionals in Hong Kong, meeting this criterion.
AAO found that although the articles quoted the Petitioner, they were not about him — they were about tax topics such as Chinese company acquisitions and infrastructure investments — and thus failed to meet the regulatory criterion requiring material about the alien relating to his 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 +
AAO found that although the articles quoted the Petitioner, they were not about him — they were about tax topics such as Chinese company acquisitions and infrastructure investments — and thus failed to meet the regulatory criterion requiring material about the alien relating to his work.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The single letter discussed described value to the partner's company rather than achievements or significant contributions to the broader industry or field, and Petitioner identified no other peer, governmental, or organizational recognition.
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 single letter discussed described value to the partner's company rather than achievements or significant contributions to the broader industry or field, and Petitioner identified no other peer, governmental, or organizational recognition.
high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services
裁决如何说明
AAO treated this criterion as abandoned. The decision lists abandoned criteria as (i), (v), (viii), and '(xi)' — apparently a typographical reference to (ix), the high-remuneration criterion the Petitioner originally claimed.
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 treated this criterion as abandoned. The decision lists abandoned criteria as (i), (v), (viii), and '(xi)' — apparently a typographical reference to (ix), the high-remuneration criterion the Petitioner originally claimed.