Possession of master's degree or foreign equivalent
AAO 为什么未被说服
The credential evaluation finds the Beneficiary's degree plus coursework at two other institutions together equate to a U.S. master's degree, but the labor certification prohibits alternate combinations. The U.S. doctoral transcript does not indicate degree conferral, and the Beneficiary's own attestation on the labor certification listed master's-level education from his Filipino university rather than a U.S. doctorate.
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 credential evaluation finds the Beneficiary's degree plus coursework at two other institutions together equate to a U.S. master's degree, but the labor certification prohibits alternate combinations. The U.S. doctoral transcript does not indicate degree conferral, and the Beneficiary's own attestation on the labor certification listed master's-level education from his Filipino university rather than a U.S. doctorate.
Letters submitted to document the Beneficiary's prior experience are inconsistent regarding employment start dates (March 2008 vs. March 2009) and lack the required description of experience; the second letter is not on company stationery and is uncorroborated.
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 +
Letters submitted to document the Beneficiary's prior experience are inconsistent regarding employment start dates (March 2008 vs. March 2009) and lack the required description of experience; the second letter is not on company stationery and is uncorroborated.
AAO concluded the Petitioner did not provide regulatory required evidence (annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements) covering the period from the priority date onward, and additionally must show ability to pay combined wages of a second I-140 petition.
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 concluded the Petitioner did not provide regulatory required evidence (annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements) covering the period from the priority date onward, and additionally must show ability to pay combined wages of a second I-140 petition.
validity of labor certification for area of intended employment
AAO 为什么未被说服
Online state records show Washington terminated the Petitioner's corporate registration in 2019, suggesting the company no longer does business there and casting doubt on the area of intended employment listed on the labor certification.
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 +
Online state records show Washington terminated the Petitioner's corporate registration in 2019, suggesting the company no longer does business there and casting doubt on the area of intended employment listed on the labor certification.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) expressly requires a specific duties description in each experience letter; the deficient letter therefore cannot be credited, and without it the beneficiary falls short of five years.
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 +
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) expressly requires a specific duties description in each experience letter; the deficient letter therefore cannot be credited, and without it the beneficiary falls short of five years.
Net-income increases (from -$44,780 in 2014 up to $13,197 in 2018) never approach the $301,034.35 combined wage shortfall or even the $35,123 single-beneficiary shortfall. Counsel's award assertion is not evidence under Matter of Obaigbena. An unguaranteed line of credit, citing Rahman v. Chertoff, does not establish ability to pay.…
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 +
Net-income increases (from -$44,780 in 2014 up to $13,197 in 2018) never approach the $301,034.35 combined wage shortfall or even the $35,123 single-beneficiary shortfall. Counsel's award assertion is not evidence under Matter of Obaigbena. An unguaranteed line of credit, citing Rahman v. Chertoff, does not establish ability to pay. Matter of Maysa is a non-binding BALCA decision interpreting DOL rules and does not displace 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2)'s priority-date requirement.
Counsel's bare assertion is not evidence under Matter of Obaigbena, and the petitioner failed to submit the previously requested evidence of continuing operations; Texas Comptroller records continued to show forfeited corporate status.
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 +
Counsel's bare assertion is not evidence under Matter of Obaigbena, and the petitioner failed to submit the previously requested evidence of continuing operations; Texas Comptroller records continued to show forfeited corporate status.
Petitioner's continuing intent to employ / successor-in-interest
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner announced a merger with another healthcare company while the appeal was pending, and the record does not establish whether a successor-in-interest relationship exists or whether the Petitioner still intends to employ the Beneficiary.
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 announced a merger with another healthcare company while the appeal was pending, and the record does not establish whether a successor-in-interest relationship exists or whether the Petitioner still intends to employ the Beneficiary.
The Petitioner posted notice on its intranet and at its regional office but did not post notice at the worksites of current clients as required by DOL guidance for Schedule A positions where placement is at unanticipated client homes.
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 posted notice on its intranet and at its regional office but did not post notice at the worksites of current clients as required by DOL guidance for Schedule A positions where placement is at unanticipated client homes.
AAO reversed the Director's finding, concluding that the Petitioner's actual wages could not be clearly established because the $140 figure was per-performance not hourly, additional unpaid duties were required, and after deducting lodging and other allowances his wages were $50,901—above average but well below the highest earners in the field, and the comparative data was limited and unreliable.
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 reversed the Director's finding, concluding that the Petitioner's actual wages could not be clearly established because the $140 figure was per-performance not hourly, additional unpaid duties were required, and after deducting lodging and other allowances his wages were $50,901—above average but well below the highest earners in the field, and the comparative data was limited and unreliable.