Petitioner worked in the Philippines, so wage statistics from the Philippines were required; the U.S. payscale data was not appropriate evidence and the asserted glassdoor/salary.com Philippines data was not in the record.
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 +
Petitioner worked in the Philippines, so wage statistics from the Philippines were required; the U.S. payscale data was not appropriate evidence and the asserted glassdoor/salary.com Philippines data was not in the record.
The certificates and letters showed quality of work but did not identify originality or specific examples of how Petitioner's contributions were widely implemented or otherwise of major significance to the field.
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 +
The certificates and letters showed quality of work but did not identify originality or specific examples of how Petitioner's contributions were widely implemented or otherwise of major significance to the field.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The People Manager award was for HR practitioners, not administrative managers; the remaining certificates either lacked evidence they were in Petitioner's field or did not specify the field, and none was shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.
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 People Manager award was for HR practitioners, not administrative managers; the remaining certificates either lacked evidence they were in Petitioner's field or did not specify the field, and none was shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The record lacked bylaws or membership requirements corroborating that the associations require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
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 record lacked bylaws or membership requirements corroborating that the associations require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
The commendation letter did not discuss publications; comparable evidence under § 204.5(h)(4) was inappropriate because Petitioner did not show the criterion does not readily apply to administrative managers; and the manuscript was not shown to have been published.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The commendation letter did not discuss publications; comparable evidence under § 204.5(h)(4) was inappropriate because Petitioner did not show the criterion does not readily apply to administrative managers; and the manuscript was not shown to have been published.
Being a guest speaker is not equivalent to judging the work of others, and the certificate for the [REDACTED] panel lacked details about duties, the field, or the work judged to show it was in the same or allied field as administrative management.
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 +
Being a guest speaker is not equivalent to judging the work of others, and the certificate for the [REDACTED] panel lacked details about duties, the field, or the work judged to show it was in the same or allied field as administrative management.
The award must be major and internationally recognized (such as Nobel, Pulitzer, Academy Award, Olympic Medal); being issued by an international company does not suffice and Petitioner provided no media coverage or other evidence of international 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 award must be major and internationally recognized (such as Nobel, Pulitzer, Academy Award, Olympic Medal); being issued by an international company does not suffice and Petitioner provided no media coverage or other evidence of international recognition.
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
AAO 为什么未被说服
The evidence lacked titles with matching duties or details establishing a leading role; letters lacked specific examples showing critical importance to outcomes; and Petitioner did not establish the organizations enjoy a distinguished reputation.
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 evidence lacked titles with matching duties or details establishing a leading role; letters lacked specific examples showing critical importance to outcomes; and Petitioner did not establish the organizations enjoy a distinguished reputation.