Sufficiency of NOIR evidence supporting revocation
AAO 为什么未被说服
The NOIR was defective because it did not cite the specific derogatory evidence (the president's statement) that the position had been filled, did not specify when the position became unavailable, and thus failed to satisfy Estime's requirement that an NOIR include a specific statement of the supporting evidence.
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 NOIR was defective because it did not cite the specific derogatory evidence (the president's statement) that the position had been filled, did not specify when the position became unavailable, and thus failed to satisfy Estime's requirement that an NOIR include a specific statement of the supporting evidence.
The Petitioner submitted only its 2015 federal tax return, but the priority date is January 12, 2016, and there is no evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of $59,696 in 2016 as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).
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 submitted only its 2015 federal tax return, but the priority date is January 12, 2016, and there is no evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of $59,696 in 2016 as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).
AAO found the reference letters, citation counts (including self-citations), peer review activities, two email inquiries, and grant funding (where professors were the PIs) insufficient to show a record of success or interest from relevant parties. The Petitioner did not show his work has served as an impetus for progress or generated substantial discourse in the field.
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 found the reference letters, citation counts (including self-citations), peer review activities, two email inquiries, and grant funding (where professors were the PIs) insufficient to show a record of success or interest from relevant parties. The Petitioner did not show his work has served as an impetus for progress or generated substantial discourse in the field.
AAO agreed with the Director that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance based on dissemination of research through engineering journals and conferences.
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 agreed with the Director that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance based on dissemination of research through engineering journals and conferences.
AAO concluded that while the Petitioner demonstrated sustained acclaim as an athlete through 2014, his coaching career was primarily at a regional level, and the evidence did not show he had sustained his athletic acclaim into his coaching career or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of the field as a coach.
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 that while the Petitioner demonstrated sustained acclaim as an athlete through 2014, his coaching career was primarily at a regional level, and the evidence did not show he had sustained his athletic acclaim into his coaching career or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of the field as a coach.
The AAO found that while the Beneficiary achieved considerable success as a food industry entrepreneur, the submitted letters and media articles did not establish that his contributions rose to the level of major significance in the field as a whole.…
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 AAO found that while the Beneficiary achieved considerable success as a food industry entrepreneur, the submitted letters and media articles did not establish that his contributions rose to the level of major significance in the field as a whole. Articles noted competitors in the same space and did not document a remarkable industry-wide impact, and the testimonial letters were too conclusory and hyperbolic to be probative.
The AAO agreed with the Director that company-level awards were not the Beneficiary's personal awards. As to the CEO of the Year award, the AAO found the award certificate, blog post, and general information about the awarding entity were insufficient to establish national or international recognition for excellence.…
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 AAO agreed with the Director that company-level awards were not the Beneficiary's personal awards. As to the CEO of the Year award, the AAO found the award certificate, blog post, and general information about the awarding entity were insufficient to establish national or international recognition for excellence. As to the Forbes recognition, the AAO found it was not a 'prize or award' within the plain meaning of the regulation.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that employment with one entity and serving as an authorized representative of another are not comparable to qualifying memberships, and the Petitioner did not show the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation.
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 employment with one entity and serving as an authorized representative of another are not comparable to qualifying memberships, and the Petitioner did not show the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation.