AAO disagreed with the Director and found the criterion not met. The first letter showed the Petitioner organized competitions but did not mention judging. The second letter thanked him for judging startup selections but lacked detail about duties, entities judged, or criteria used, making it impossible to determine he judged work in the same or allied 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 disagreed with the Director and found the criterion not met. The first letter showed the Petitioner organized competitions but did not mention judging. The second letter thanked him for judging startup selections but lacked detail about duties, entities judged, or criteria used, making it impossible to determine he judged work in the same or allied field. The third certificate showed participation in a roundtable, not judging.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the personal certificates were mere participation acknowledgments, not prizes or awards. The company awards could not be attributed to the Petitioner because the evidence did not show he was directly responsible or played an integral role, and even if attributed, the record did not establish they were nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in information technology.
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 personal certificates were mere participation acknowledgments, not prizes or awards. The company awards could not be attributed to the Petitioner because the evidence did not show he was directly responsible or played an integral role, and even if attributed, the record did not establish they were nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in information technology.
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed the criterion is met, but limited the basis to the Petitioner's role as technical deputy at one company that serves Iran's largest banks, where he leads all technical departments and is the highest paid employee. Evidence of his role at a prior employer was insufficient.
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 criterion is met, but limited the basis to the Petitioner's role as technical deputy at one company that serves Iran's largest banks, where he leads all technical departments and is the highest paid employee. Evidence of his role at a prior employer was insufficient.
AAO disagreed with the Director and found the criterion met. The Petitioner's monthly salary of over 192 million IRR far exceeded the 80th percentile benchmark of 80 million IRR for senior managers in production/operations roles, and greatly exceeded the average monthly household income in Iran of 17 million IRR.
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 disagreed with the Director and found the criterion met. The Petitioner's monthly salary of over 192 million IRR far exceeded the 80th percentile benchmark of 80 million IRR for senior managers in production/operations roles, and greatly exceeded the average monthly household income in Iran of 17 million IRR.
Labor certification supports advanced degree professional classification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the 'other' modifier in box H.14 went beyond standard Kellogg language, creating an undefined minimum requirement that could be satisfied with less than a single advanced degree, thereby disqualifying the position from EB-2 advanced degree professional classification.
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 that the 'other' modifier in box H.14 went beyond standard Kellogg language, creating an undefined minimum requirement that could be satisfied with less than a single advanced degree, thereby disqualifying the position from EB-2 advanced degree professional classification.
Ability to pay proffered wages for all I-140 beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO confirmed that the Petitioner did not provide information about three I-140 petitions, that the wages actually paid to the instant Beneficiary ($82,078 in 2016 and $88,777 in 2017) fell short of the $103,750 proffered wage, and that without a complete picture of all I-140 obligations it was impossible to determine whether net income or net current assets were sufficient.…
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 confirmed that the Petitioner did not provide information about three I-140 petitions, that the wages actually paid to the instant Beneficiary ($82,078 in 2016 and $88,777 in 2017) fell short of the $103,750 proffered wage, and that without a complete picture of all I-140 obligations it was impossible to determine whether net income or net current assets were sufficient. The totality-of-circumstances analysis also failed due to the incomplete information.
Whether Director properly considered Petitioner's timely request to correct alleged clerical error in Form I-140 petition-type selection
裁决如何说明
AAO does not decide whether the box-check was actually a clerical error or whether the amendment should be permitted; it remands because the Director's reasoning was insufficient to support the rejection.
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 does not decide whether the box-check was actually a clerical error or whether the amendment should be permitted; it remands because the Director's reasoning was insufficient to support the rejection.
The profit-and-loss statement submitted is unaudited and thus does not qualify as an audited financial statement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). While the record lacks compliant evidence of ability to pay for 2017, the petitioner demonstrated the 2017 tax return was unavailable at the time of appeal due to a documented extension, warranting remand rather than outright denial.
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 profit-and-loss statement submitted is unaudited and thus does not qualify as an audited financial statement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). While the record lacks compliant evidence of ability to pay for 2017, the petitioner demonstrated the 2017 tax return was unavailable at the time of appeal due to a documented extension, warranting remand rather than outright denial.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit in educational, cultural, and economic terms, but found the evidence did not show that the Beneficiary's work impacts the field of Chinese language instruction more broadly or has prospective impact beyond the petitioning institution, consistent with the Dhanasar precedent where similar teaching activities were found insufficient.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit in educational, cultural, and economic terms, but found the evidence did not show that the Beneficiary's work impacts the field of Chinese language instruction more broadly or has prospective impact beyond the petitioning institution, consistent with the Dhanasar precedent where similar teaching activities were found insufficient.
AAO found the Beneficiary well positioned based on her advanced academic credentials, teaching experience, development of the Chinese language program, and praise from colleagues and students reflecting her leadership and impact.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Beneficiary well positioned based on her advanced academic credentials, teaching experience, development of the Chinese language program, and praise from colleagues and students reflecting her leadership and impact.