final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director across all dimensions: book sales figures lacked comparative context; the proposed acquisition was unsigned and its significance never established even when specifically asked in the RFE; customer letters showed useful software but not national/international acclaim; appellate arguments were too general and non-specific; METRC vendor status lacked objective documentation of significance; and the…
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 with the Director across all dimensions: book sales figures lacked comparative context; the proposed acquisition was unsigned and its significance never established even when specifically asked in the RFE; customer letters showed useful software but not national/international acclaim; appellate arguments were too general and non-specific; METRC vendor status lacked objective documentation of significance; and the Petitioner's claim that the Director focused on singularly extraordinary achievements rather than cumulative impact was an unsupported broad assertion.
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
证据为何得到认可
In its prior appellate decision, AAO concluded the Petitioner had submitted evidence of a leading role with an organization having a distinguished reputation; this remains the only criterion credited.
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 +
In its prior appellate decision, AAO concluded the Petitioner had submitted evidence of a leading role with an organization having a distinguished reputation; this remains the only criterion credited.
The Petitioner waived this criterion on appeal. On motion, his evidence consisted of a translated webpage introducing a 2014 conference speech, but no transcript was provided and the speech was not shown to have been published in any professional or major medium or to involve media and communications.
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 Petitioner waived this criterion on appeal. On motion, his evidence consisted of a translated webpage introducing a 2014 conference speech, but no transcript was provided and the speech was not shown to have been published in any professional or major medium or to involve media and communications.
AAO acknowledged the Petitioner's article on a possible acquisition was an original creation but found no evidence later articles cited it or that the work remarkably impacted the field. Other evidence either failed translation requirements or did not show the Petitioner's role in promotional events influenced the field of media and communications.
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 acknowledged the Petitioner's article on a possible acquisition was an original creation but found no evidence later articles cited it or that the work remarkably impacted the field. Other evidence either failed translation requirements or did not show the Petitioner's role in promotional events influenced the field of media and communications.