Specific skills requirement per Section H.14 of labor certification
裁决如何说明
AAO noted that the specific skills requirement in section H.14 was not addressed by the Director and remanded for consideration of this issue alongside the qualifying experience issue.
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 noted that the specific skills requirement in section H.14 was not addressed by the Director and remanded for consideration of this issue alongside the qualifying experience issue.
Job opportunity in labor certification same as in petition
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Director's analysis deficient for failing to assess the evidence that job duties remained unchanged, but also found the record insufficient to make a positive determination due to unresolved questions about hiring requirements, O*NET wage levels, and potential management responsibilities at the Vice President level. The matter is 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 the Director's analysis deficient for failing to assess the evidence that job duties remained unchanged, but also found the record insufficient to make a positive determination due to unresolved questions about hiring requirements, O*NET wage levels, and potential management responsibilities at the Vice President level. The matter is remanded.
Two years of qualifying experience as required by labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
The experience letters do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) because the authors are no longer employed by the referenced companies and the letters were not issued by those companies. The HR verification letter from one employer provides no job duty details. The Beneficiary's experience at that employer also lasted less than two 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 +
The experience letters do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) because the authors are no longer employed by the referenced companies and the letters were not issued by those companies. The HR verification letter from one employer provides no job duty details. The Beneficiary's experience at that employer also lasted less than two years.
advanced degree qualification — accreditation at time of degree issuance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that when the Beneficiary's degree was issued in August 2011, the university was only 'pre-accredited,' which is not accreditation and does not assure eventual accreditation. Full accreditation was not obtained until December 2012. AAO held that accreditation must exist at the time of degree issuance, not merely at the petition's priority date.
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 when the Beneficiary's degree was issued in August 2011, the university was only 'pre-accredited,' which is not accreditation and does not assure eventual accreditation. Full accreditation was not obtained until December 2012. AAO held that accreditation must exist at the time of degree issuance, not merely at the petition's priority date.
Intention to employ beneficiary in area of intended employment per labor certification
证据为何得到认可
AAO found the DOL roving-worker policy requiring the 'various unanticipated locations' language did not apply because the position involved travel only within a single MSA, not throughout the United States. The Petitioner's imprecise description was a deficiency but not one warranting denial.
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 DOL roving-worker policy requiring the 'various unanticipated locations' language did not apply because the position involved travel only within a single MSA, not throughout the United States. The Petitioner's imprecise description was a deficiency but not one warranting denial.
AAO credited the wages paid ($85,056.02) and found only the $4,778.98 shortfall needed to be covered. Both net income ($17,362) and net current assets ($31,224) exceeded the shortfall, establishing ability to pay for the priority date 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 credited the wages paid ($85,056.02) and found only the $4,778.98 shortfall needed to be covered. Both net income ($17,362) and net current assets ($31,224) exceeded the shortfall, establishing ability to pay for the priority date year.
The credential evaluation relied on post-baccalaureate coursework rather than a single degree, so no master's equivalency was established. The Beneficiary's five-year Filipino bachelor's degree equates only to a U.S. bachelor's, so five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience was required. The U.S.…
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 relied on post-baccalaureate coursework rather than a single degree, so no master's equivalency was established. The Beneficiary's five-year Filipino bachelor's degree equates only to a U.S. bachelor's, so five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience was required. The U.S. employer letter lacked job duties, and unresolved discrepancies in Philippine employment history (overlapping employers, conflicting dates across visa applications and prior labor certification) meant qualifying progressive experience was not established. New appellate letters were rejected under Matter of Soriano.
Five years of post-baccalaureate qualifying experience
AAO 为什么未被说服
The letter covering March 2013 to April 2014 did not describe the Beneficiary's experience as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), so without that year the Beneficiary fell short of the five-year post-baccalaureate requirement.
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 letter covering March 2013 to April 2014 did not describe the Beneficiary's experience as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), so without that year the Beneficiary fell short of the five-year post-baccalaureate requirement.
The Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $72,883 in 2018, which does not equal or exceed the annual proffered wage of $107,806, leaving a $35,123 shortfall.
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 paid the Beneficiary $72,883 in 2018, which does not equal or exceed the annual proffered wage of $107,806, leaving a $35,123 shortfall.
Ability to pay under Sonegawa totality of circumstances
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that unlike the petitioner in Sonegawa, this Petitioner did not document uncharacteristic losses, an outstanding industry reputation, or that the Beneficiary was replacing a current employee. Revenue decreased more than 41% from 2017 to 2018, and the Petitioner had the added burden of covering multiple petitions.
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 unlike the petitioner in Sonegawa, this Petitioner did not document uncharacteristic losses, an outstanding industry reputation, or that the Beneficiary was replacing a current employee. Revenue decreased more than 41% from 2017 to 2018, and the Petitioner had the added burden of covering multiple petitions.