License to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession
AAO 为什么未被说服
The licenses and certifications relate to the company, not personally to the Petitioner. The Korean patents are intellectual property rights, not licenses to practice a profession or professional certifications.
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 licenses and certifications relate to the company, not personally to the Petitioner. The Korean patents are intellectual property rights, not licenses to practice a profession or professional certifications.
Ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
The career certificates did not indicate how the Petitioner divided time among various responsibilities or specify the amount of time devoted to full-time biomedical materials development.
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 career certificates did not indicate how the Petitioner divided time among various responsibilities or specify the amount of time devoted to full-time biomedical materials development.
Advanced degree or equivalent (5 years progressive experience)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The career certificates showed duties spanning sales, marketing, financial management, and R&D without specifying time devoted specifically to biomedical materials work. Self-serving documents like affidavits and credential evaluations could not substitute for proper employer letters, and inconsistencies among evaluators further undermined the record.
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 career certificates showed duties spanning sales, marketing, financial management, and R&D without specifying time devoted specifically to biomedical materials work. Self-serving documents like affidavits and credential evaluations could not substitute for proper employer letters, and inconsistencies among evaluators further undermined the record.
AAO noted the Petitioner referenced this criterion on appeal but chose to consider the related evidence in the final merits determination rather than at step 1.
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 the Petitioner referenced this criterion on appeal but chose to consider the related evidence in the final merits determination rather than at step 1.
AAO found the evidence showed positive contributions within the Petitioner's employers and limited recognition events, but no sustained national or international acclaim. Awards lacked media coverage, the scholarly article had only five citations, conference speaking was not shown to confer acclaim, and expert letters came from personally familiar colleagues rather than reflecting broader field recognition.
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 evidence showed positive contributions within the Petitioner's employers and limited recognition events, but no sustained national or international acclaim. Awards lacked media coverage, the scholarly article had only five citations, conference speaking was not shown to confer acclaim, and expert letters came from personally familiar colleagues rather than reflecting broader field recognition.