Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that the government resolution establishing that national team candidates must have 'reached the highest level' in official competitions sufficiently established that membership requires outstanding achievements, satisfying criterion ii.
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 government resolution establishing that national team candidates must have 'reached the highest level' in official competitions sufficiently established that membership requires outstanding achievements, satisfying criterion ii.
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's receipt of medals at the 2013 and 2014 World Championships and in the 2014 competition satisfied criterion i.
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 agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's receipt of medals at the 2013 and 2014 World Championships and in the 2014 competition satisfied criterion i.
Motion to Reopen — New Facts with Documentary Evidence
AAO 为什么未被说服
The submitted tax return figures lacked net income and net current assets data; claims of additional financial resources had already been dismissed; the only supporting documentation consisted of Kinser reports already in the record; and the Petitioner still did not submit evidence of its total proffered wage obligations to all I-140 beneficiaries — a deficiency flagged since 2013.
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 submitted tax return figures lacked net income and net current assets data; claims of additional financial resources had already been dismissed; the only supporting documentation consisted of Kinser reports already in the record; and the Petitioner still did not submit evidence of its total proffered wage obligations to all I-140 beneficiaries — a deficiency flagged since 2013.
Motion to Reconsider — Incorrect Application of Law or Policy
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner did not claim any incorrect application of law or policy in the most recent AAO decision, nor raised any legal basis not already considered and dismissed in prior decisions.
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 did not claim any incorrect application of law or policy in the most recent AAO decision, nor raised any legal basis not already considered and dismissed in prior decisions.
AAO disagreed with the Director's favorable finding. The CIPRA survey did not provide a position-specific comparison, the U.S. DOL data was inappropriate for evaluating Chinese wages, and the Robert Walters survey compared the Petitioner (a deputy general manager) to senior brand managers, a lower-level position. The Petitioner failed to establish a meaningful comparison to others in the same or similar position.
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 disagreed with the Director's favorable finding. The CIPRA survey did not provide a position-specific comparison, the U.S. DOL data was inappropriate for evaluating Chinese wages, and the Robert Walters survey compared the Petitioner (a deputy general manager) to senior brand managers, a lower-level position. The Petitioner failed to establish a meaningful comparison to others in the same or similar position.
AAO agreed with the Director. The reference letter provided general assertions about the Petitioner's importance without probative detail about how his specific role was leading or critical. The undated third-party personnel list was insufficient to establish the management structure.…
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 agreed with the Director. The reference letter provided general assertions about the Petitioner's importance without probative detail about how his specific role was leading or critical. The undated third-party personnel list was insufficient to establish the management structure. Evidence for the second employer was similarly thin, with only an unattributed two-sentence employment certificate and no senior official letter with personal knowledge.
AAO conducted a brief final merits review despite finding fewer than three criteria met. The Petitioner's recognition was limited to early-career events from over ten years before filing, and his more recent corporate brand management work showed success but not the level of acclaim required for extraordinary ability.
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 conducted a brief final merits review despite finding fewer than three criteria met. The Petitioner's recognition was limited to early-career events from over ten years before filing, and his more recent corporate brand management work showed success but not the level of acclaim required for extraordinary ability.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the letter alone was insufficient to establish a formal team captain role critical to the team's success, and no evidence was submitted establishing the distinguished reputation of the national or junior national taekwondo team. On motion, the Petitioner did not address AAO's reasons or explain legal/policy error.
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 letter alone was insufficient to establish a formal team captain role critical to the team's success, and no evidence was submitted establishing the distinguished reputation of the national or junior national taekwondo team. On motion, the Petitioner did not address AAO's reasons or explain legal/policy error.
AAO found that the letters from the federation president contained unexplained inconsistencies regarding the number and dates of competitions where the Petitioner judged, and the Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence such as judging certifications or official event records. On motion, the Petitioner did not address these inconsistencies or explain how AAO misapplied law or policy.
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 found that the letters from the federation president contained unexplained inconsistencies regarding the number and dates of competitions where the Petitioner judged, and the Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence such as judging certifications or official event records. On motion, the Petitioner did not address these inconsistencies or explain how AAO misapplied law or policy.
Original contributions of major significance in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the testimonial letters mentioned the Petitioner's athletic successes and national team membership but did not specifically articulate how his contributions were original or of major significance and their impact on subsequent work. AAO clarified it did not reject the letters outright but found them insufficiently specific.
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 testimonial letters mentioned the Petitioner's athletic successes and national team membership but did not specifically articulate how his contributions were original or of major significance and their impact on subsequent work. AAO clarified it did not reject the letters outright but found them insufficiently specific.