The AAO found that while support letters attested to the Petitioner's involvement in diplomatic efforts and government work, they lacked specific detail about the nature and significance of his original contributions. Documentary evidence of peace agreements did not mention him. His publications and presentations lacked evidence of major impact.…
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 support letters attested to the Petitioner's involvement in diplomatic efforts and government work, they lacked specific detail about the nature and significance of his original contributions. Documentary evidence of peace agreements did not mention him. His publications and presentations lacked evidence of major impact. Work relating to diplomatic roles was more properly considered under the leading/critical role criterion.
The AAO found that employment or involvement with an organization does not constitute membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements. The job postings submitted were not specific to the Petitioner's actual positions, and letters merely repeating regulatory language were insufficient to establish that selection criteria rose to the level of outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or internatio…
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 found that employment or involvement with an organization does not constitute membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements. The job postings submitted were not specific to the Petitioner's actual positions, and letters merely repeating regulatory language were insufficient to establish that selection criteria rose to the level of outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
The 2017 W-2 showed the Beneficiary received $85,842.21, which was more than $22,000 below the proffered wage of $108,264, so the Petitioner did not establish ability to pay through wages paid.
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 2017 W-2 showed the Beneficiary received $85,842.21, which was more than $22,000 below the proffered wage of $108,264, so the Petitioner did not establish ability to pay through wages paid.
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for all I-140 beneficiaries
裁决如何说明
Because the Petitioner has filed at least 13 other I-140 petitions and there is no record evidence concerning those other beneficiaries—and the Director never requested such evidence—AAO declined to resolve this prong and instead remanded for the Director to gather and evaluate the necessary 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 +
Because the Petitioner has filed at least 13 other I-140 petitions and there is no record evidence concerning those other beneficiaries—and the Director never requested such evidence—AAO declined to resolve this prong and instead remanded for the Director to gather and evaluate the necessary evidence.
Net income and net current assets (single beneficiary)
证据为何得到认可
The 2017 net income of $94,318 plus wages paid to the Beneficiary of $84,842.41 exceeded the proffered wage of $108,264, so the Petitioner facially established ability to pay for the instant Beneficiary.
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 2017 net income of $94,318 plus wages paid to the Beneficiary of $84,842.41 exceeded the proffered wage of $108,264, so the Petitioner facially established ability to pay for the instant Beneficiary.
evidence of J-1 section 212(e) waiver under 8 C.F.R. § 204.12(c)(5)
证据为何得到认可
AAO found the record contained documentation from USCIS showing the Petitioner was granted a waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement, satisfying 8 C.F.R. § 204.12(c)(5).
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 contained documentation from USCIS showing the Petitioner was granted a waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement, satisfying 8 C.F.R. § 204.12(c)(5).
AAO agreed the Director was wrong to rely on Kellogg language as reducing job requirements, but found a different deficiency: part H.14's acceptance of master's equivalencies beyond single degrees (i.e., combinations of educational credentials or credentials and experience) does not meet the regulatory definition of 'advanced degree,' which requires a single degree.
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 Director was wrong to rely on Kellogg language as reducing job requirements, but found a different deficiency: part H.14's acceptance of master's equivalencies beyond single degrees (i.e., combinations of educational credentials or credentials and experience) does not meet the regulatory definition of 'advanced degree,' which requires a single degree.