Specific skills requirement (Section H.14 of labor certification)
裁决如何说明
AAO found the Director's categorical refusal to consider the internship letter legally unsupported, but noted the letter's credibility is diminished because the internship was omitted from the labor certification. AAO remanded for the Director to obtain independent objective evidence before making a final 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 found the Director's categorical refusal to consider the internship letter legally unsupported, but noted the letter's credibility is diminished because the internship was omitted from the labor certification. AAO remanded for the Director to obtain independent objective evidence before making a final determination.
The Beneficiary earned a master of science degree in computational science, satisfying the labor certification's minimum educational requirement of a U.S. master's degree in computer science or computational science.
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 Beneficiary earned a master of science degree in computational science, satisfying the labor certification's minimum educational requirement of a U.S. master's degree in computer science or computational science.
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO concluded the record did not establish ability to pay in 2008 (the priority-date year) because no annual report, federal tax return, or audited financial statements for 2008 were submitted.
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 record did not establish ability to pay in 2008 (the priority-date year) because no annual report, federal tax return, or audited financial statements for 2008 were submitted.
minimum experience and special skills required by the labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found inconsistent dates, missing descriptions, and unproven specific-skills experience left the Beneficiary's qualifying experience unestablished.
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 inconsistent dates, missing descriptions, and unproven specific-skills experience left the Beneficiary's qualifying experience unestablished.
The employer letters reference Hyperion-related skills but do not exactly match the technical skills specified on the labor certification, and none of the letters or educational documents indicate knowledge of MaxL, Oracle Database, or BI+ Interactive Reporting.
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 employer letters reference Hyperion-related skills but do not exactly match the technical skills specified on the labor certification, and none of the letters or educational documents indicate knowledge of MaxL, Oracle Database, or BI+ Interactive Reporting.
minimum experience required by labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
Inconsistencies among the labor certification, four employer letters, and the Beneficiary's December 2015 nonimmigrant visa application cast doubt on the claimed experience and indicate the Beneficiary lacks the minimum four years of required experience.
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 +
Inconsistencies among the labor certification, four employer letters, and the Beneficiary's December 2015 nonimmigrant visa application cast doubt on the claimed experience and indicate the Beneficiary lacks the minimum four years of required experience.
AAO declined to make a final determination on combined ability to pay, instead remanding for development of 2019 financial evidence and Sonegawa factors. AAO did find that the 2018 net income covered the individual wage difference for this 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 declined to make a final determination on combined ability to pay, instead remanding for development of 2019 financial evidence and Sonegawa factors. AAO did find that the 2018 net income covered the individual wage difference for this petition.
AAO found that the Director erroneously applied 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1), a provision applicable to the basic labor certification process, to a case filed under the special handling process of § 656.18. Because the Director did not explain the applicability of § 656.17(i)(1) to § 656.18 filings or analyze the Petitioner's intent to employ the Beneficiary, the Director's decision cannot stand and the matter must be remanded.
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 Director erroneously applied 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1), a provision applicable to the basic labor certification process, to a case filed under the special handling process of § 656.18. Because the Director did not explain the applicability of § 656.17(i)(1) to § 656.18 filings or analyze the Petitioner's intent to employ the Beneficiary, the Director's decision cannot stand and the matter must be remanded.
advanced degree requirement per labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
USCIS must take the labor certification at face value as certified and cannot accept post-filing modifications. The alternate requirement in H.8 specified a bachelor's degree and three years of experience, which is below the advanced degree threshold. The attempt to change 'bachelor's' to 'master's' is a material change barred by 20 C.F.R.…
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 +
USCIS must take the labor certification at face value as certified and cannot accept post-filing modifications. The alternate requirement in H.8 specified a bachelor's degree and three years of experience, which is below the advanced degree threshold. The attempt to change 'bachelor's' to 'master's' is a material change barred by 20 C.F.R. § 656.11(b), and a petitioner may not make material changes to a deficient petition to bring it into compliance.
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the published articles were brief news items routinely published when producers change employers, not evidence of sustained acclaim. Testimonial evidence of original contributions was not corroborated by independent field-wide recognition. Leading role evidence was limited to current employer. Salary comparison was undermined by overly broad wage survey categories covering only one year.…
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 published articles were brief news items routinely published when producers change employers, not evidence of sustained acclaim. Testimonial evidence of original contributions was not corroborated by independent field-wide recognition. Leading role evidence was limited to current employer. Salary comparison was undermined by overly broad wage survey categories covering only one year. Collectively, the evidence did not establish a career of acclaimed work placing her among the very top of the field.