AAO noted that the Petitioner referenced membership criterion evidence on appeal but chose to consider it in the final merits determination rather than ruling on it as a separate criterion.
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 Petitioner referenced membership criterion evidence on appeal but chose to consider it in the final merits determination rather than ruling on it as a separate criterion.
The record contains salary surveys from the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists indicating that the Petitioner's base salary is high relative to others in his field, further supported by Project Management Institute data and Department of Labor Career One Stop website.
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 contains salary surveys from the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists indicating that the Petitioner's base salary is high relative to others in his field, further supported by Project Management Institute data and Department of Labor Career One Stop website.
AAO noted that the Petitioner referenced original contributions evidence on appeal but chose to consider it in the final merits determination rather than ruling on it as a separate 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 +
AAO noted that the Petitioner referenced original contributions evidence on appeal but chose to consider it in the final merits determination rather than ruling on it as a separate criterion.
AAO noted that the Petitioner referenced leading or critical role evidence on appeal but chose to consider it in the final merits determination rather than ruling on it as a separate criterion.
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 Petitioner referenced leading or critical role evidence on appeal but chose to consider it in the final merits determination rather than ruling on it as a separate criterion.
AAO found the New York Daily News and New York Post materials were actually advertisements, not published articles about the Petitioner. The Sing Tao Daily article lacked a complete certified translation. The Flushing Times article did not demonstrate the publication constituted major media.
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 New York Daily News and New York Post materials were actually advertisements, not published articles about the Petitioner. The Sing Tao Daily article lacked a complete certified translation. The Flushing Times article did not demonstrate the publication constituted major media.
AAO agreed the Petitioner established leading roles but found the record failed to demonstrate that the schools had a distinguished reputation marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. Media coverage was unidentified, a foreign-language article lacked certified translation, and competition results did not demonstrate the school's 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 +
AAO agreed the Petitioner established leading roles but found the record failed to demonstrate that the schools had a distinguished reputation marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. Media coverage was unidentified, a foreign-language article lacked certified translation, and competition results did not demonstrate the school's distinguished reputation.
The Chinese-language books lacked properly certified translations. The New York Daily News material was an advertisement containing only an excerpt of a thesis, not a full scholarly article in a qualifying publication. The World Journal article lacked a complete certified translation and lacked the indicia of a scholarly article.
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 Chinese-language books lacked properly certified translations. The New York Daily News material was an advertisement containing only an excerpt of a thesis, not a full scholarly article in a qualifying publication. The World Journal article lacked a complete certified translation and lacked the indicia of a scholarly article.
AAO found the Director erred by imposing a sustained acclaim requirement at the criteria stage. AAO found the evidence sufficient to show the Petitioner judged applicants on fluency, teaching ability, and other relevant skills, thereby demonstrating judging of the work of others in his field.
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 the Director erred by imposing a sustained acclaim requirement at the criteria stage. AAO found the evidence sufficient to show the Petitioner judged applicants on fluency, teaching ability, and other relevant skills, thereby demonstrating judging of the work of others in his field.