A letter from the Petitioner's former employer confirmed full-time work coordinating environmental programs from 2004 to 2015, satisfying the ten-year full-time experience 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 +
A letter from the Petitioner's former employer confirmed full-time work coordinating environmental programs from 2004 to 2015, satisfying the ten-year full-time experience criterion.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner did not establish that it was his own work on display; by his own description, it was the models' work being displayed. His comparable evidence argument also failed because he did not show why he could not offer evidence meeting at least three of the standard criteria.
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 establish that it was his own work on display; by his own description, it was the models' work being displayed. His comparable evidence argument also failed because he did not show why he could not offer evidence meeting at least three of the standard criteria.
The letters of reference lacked specificity about how the Petitioner's contributions were of major significance to the field as a whole; the charter-related evidence did not establish the Petitioner's direct role in its creation or success, and the record lacked evidence of the charter's impact on the modeling field.
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 letters of reference lacked specificity about how the Petitioner's contributions were of major significance to the field as a whole; the charter-related evidence did not establish the Petitioner's direct role in its creation or success, and the record lacked evidence of the charter's impact on the modeling field.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the record did not support the Director's finding. The letters lacked sufficient detail and corroboration, the organizational structure evidence was absent, evidence of distinguished reputation was self-promotional or insufficient, and the booking document lacked key contextual information.
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 record did not support the Director's finding. The letters lacked sufficient detail and corroboration, the organizational structure evidence was absent, evidence of distinguished reputation was self-promotional or insufficient, and the booking document lacked key contextual information.
The submitted materials did not constitute published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The MTV episode was not about the Petitioner, the models.com and TPN articles were about others, and the blog was not shown to be 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 +
The submitted materials did not constitute published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The MTV episode was not about the Petitioner, the models.com and TPN articles were about others, and the blog was not shown to be major media.
AAO found the evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a judge in the 2011 competition in Spain, supported by a letter from the former president and video screenshots, sufficient to fulfill this criterion.
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 evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a judge in the 2011 competition in Spain, supported by a letter from the former president and video screenshots, sufficient to fulfill this criterion.
Propriety of inadmissibility finding in visa petition proceeding
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO held that a visa petition proceeding is not the appropriate forum for an inadmissibility determination; such a finding can only be made when the petitioner later applies for admission or adjustment of status.
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 held that a visa petition proceeding is not the appropriate forum for an inadmissibility determination; such a finding can only be made when the petitioner later applies for admission or adjustment of status.
Threshold documentary requirements for ineffective assistance of counsel (Lozada)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner had not met the Lozada threshold requirements because the affidavit lacked sufficient detail to show former counsel was informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond, and the record contained no complaint to disciplinary authorities or explanation for its absence.
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 Petitioner had not met the Lozada threshold requirements because the affidavit lacked sufficient detail to show former counsel was informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond, and the record contained no complaint to disciplinary authorities or explanation for its absence.