AAO found the Director imposed requirements not in the regulatory text and withdrew that portion of the decision. The record shows the Petitioner's films were displayed at multiple film festivals whose purpose was primarily or entirely to display films as artistic works.
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 the Director imposed requirements not in the regulatory text and withdrew that portion of the decision. The record shows the Petitioner's films were displayed at multiple film festivals whose purpose was primarily or entirely to display films as artistic works.
AAO agreed that the evidence of jury service at multiple film festivals, including for particular prizes and full prize slates, satisfies the criterion.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed that the evidence of jury service at multiple film festivals, including for particular prizes and full prize slates, satisfies the criterion.
AAO did not separately resolve whether the high salary criterion was met because the Petitioner had already established the requisite three criteria; instead AAO considered the salary evidence as part of the final merits determination.
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 did not separately resolve whether the high salary criterion was met because the Petitioner had already established the requisite three criteria; instead AAO considered the salary evidence as part of the final merits determination.
AAO agreed with the Director that the evidence of thesis evaluation, editorial committee membership, legal essay competition participation, and student competition scoring was sufficient to meet this criterion.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed with the Director that the evidence of thesis evaluation, editorial committee membership, legal essay competition participation, and student competition scoring was sufficient to meet this criterion.
AAO found the supporting letters lacked specifics about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed amendments, the proposed revisions had not been accepted into the final legislation at the time of filing, and the new evidence submitted on appeal was not accepted under the Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena rule since the Petitioner had already been notified of the deficiency.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the supporting letters lacked specifics about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed amendments, the proposed revisions had not been accepted into the final legislation at the time of filing, and the new evidence submitted on appeal was not accepted under the Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena rule since the Petitioner had already been notified of the deficiency.
AAO declined to formally reach final merits because the initial evidence threshold was not met, but noted in advisory dicta that the record does not establish the required acclaim.
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 declined to formally reach final merits because the initial evidence threshold was not met, but noted in advisory dicta that the record does not establish the required acclaim.