The Director entirely failed to address criterion (v) and the associated comparable evidence. AAO remanded, noting USCIS Policy Manual guidance that an Olympic coach whose athlete wins a medal under the coach's principal tutelage would likely constitute comparable evidence under this criterion.
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 Director entirely failed to address criterion (v) and the associated comparable evidence. AAO remanded, noting USCIS Policy Manual guidance that an Olympic coach whose athlete wins a medal under the coach's principal tutelage would likely constitute comparable evidence under this criterion.
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
裁决如何说明
AAO found the Director's analysis incomplete because she did not evaluate whether the regulatory criterion readily applies to the Petitioner's occupation as a coach or whether the comparable evidence submitted was sufficient. The matter is remanded for full re-evaluation.
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 incomplete because she did not evaluate whether the regulatory criterion readily applies to the Petitioner's occupation as a coach or whether the comparable evidence submitted was sufficient. The matter is remanded for full re-evaluation.
on balance, beneficial to waive the job offer requirement
裁决如何说明
AAO reserved its decision on the third prong, having found the endeavor lacked national importance under prong 1, making a ruling on prong 3 unnecessary to the ultimate decision. AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that this was error, citing Bagamasbad.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO reserved its decision on the third prong, having found the endeavor lacked national importance under prong 1, making a ruling on prong 3 unnecessary to the ultimate decision. AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that this was error, citing Bagamasbad.
AAO affirmed its prior appellate conclusion that the Petitioner's initial materials did not demonstrate that his endeavor would have broader implications beyond the organizations and clients he would directly serve, and that he had not shown plans to introduce novel methodologies or contribute to research and development in the market research and financial industries as a whole.…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO affirmed its prior appellate conclusion that the Petitioner's initial materials did not demonstrate that his endeavor would have broader implications beyond the organizations and clients he would directly serve, and that he had not shown plans to introduce novel methodologies or contribute to research and development in the market research and financial industries as a whole. AAO also upheld its treatment of the new business plan as a material change that could not be considered.
AAO did not address prong 2 on this motion, consistent with its prior appeal decision which did not disturb the Director's favorable finding on this prong.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO did not address prong 2 on this motion, consistent with its prior appeal decision which did not disturb the Director's favorable finding on this prong.
AAO declined to reach the high salary criterion because the Petitioner had already failed to meet the minimum threshold of three criteria, making any analysis of this criterion unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
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 reach the high salary criterion because the Petitioner had already failed to meet the minimum threshold of three criteria, making any analysis of this criterion unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
AAO found the Petitioner's job creation and revenue projections lacked sufficient evidentiary support, and that the proposed endeavor's impact did not extend beyond the specific clients the Petitioner would work with, failing to demonstrate the broad national-scale economic implications required for national importance under Dhanasar.…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Petitioner's job creation and revenue projections lacked sufficient evidentiary support, and that the proposed endeavor's impact did not extend beyond the specific clients the Petitioner would work with, failing to demonstrate the broad national-scale economic implications required for national importance under Dhanasar. The HUBZone argument was unpersuasive because the Petitioner did not adequately establish the SBA's criteria for HUBZones, and it appeared the Petitioner might not even qualify for the program.