New evidence on appeal (the Beneficiary's 2017 W-2) showed actual wages of $71,077, which is $14,120 below the $85,197 proffered wage, undercutting the Director's finding.
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 +
New evidence on appeal (the Beneficiary's 2017 W-2) showed actual wages of $71,077, which is $14,120 below the $85,197 proffered wage, undercutting the Director's finding.
Ability to pay combined proffered wages of all I-140 beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
The total combined wage shortfall for 2017 across all I-140 beneficiaries was $283,124.88, but without a 2017 tax return or equivalent financial statement, AAO could not assess whether the Petitioner's net income or net current assets were sufficient. The case was remanded to obtain that evidence. The two beneficiaries who left the company could not be excluded because their petitions were never withdrawn.
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 total combined wage shortfall for 2017 across all I-140 beneficiaries was $283,124.88, but without a 2017 tax return or equivalent financial statement, AAO could not assess whether the Petitioner's net income or net current assets were sufficient. The case was remanded to obtain that evidence. The two beneficiaries who left the company could not be excluded because their petitions were never withdrawn.
original contributions of major significance in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The recommendation letters make unsupported, conclusory claims about the Petitioner's websites without providing detailed, specific information demonstrating impact on the overall field, and the Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence for the letters' assertions.
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 recommendation letters make unsupported, conclusory claims about the Petitioner's websites without providing detailed, specific information demonstrating impact on the overall field, and the Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence for the letters' assertions.
AAO declined to formally reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold, but noted in the aggregate the record does not show the required acclaim.
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 declined to formally reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 threshold, but noted in the aggregate the record does not show the required acclaim.
AAO agreed with the Director, finding the record did not document a record of success in running a healthcare business, did not identify a source of U.S. funding, and did not show interest from U.S. customers, users, or investors.
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 agreed with the Director, finding the record did not document a record of success in running a healthcare business, did not identify a source of U.S. funding, and did not show interest from U.S. customers, users, or investors.
AAO held the misrepresentation material because failure to respond to the NOID/RFE shut off the line of inquiry into the Beneficiary's actual field of study, an inquiry that might have resulted in a determination of ineligibility.
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 the misrepresentation material because failure to respond to the NOID/RFE shut off the line of inquiry into the Beneficiary's actual field of study, an inquiry that might have resulted in a determination of ineligibility.
AAO found the Beneficiary and Petitioner submitted evidence containing false information because the F-1 diploma showed a degree in 'law' while the I-140 diploma showed a degree in 'law and business administration', with substantially different transcripts.
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 Beneficiary and Petitioner submitted evidence containing false information because the F-1 diploma showed a degree in 'law' while the I-140 diploma showed a degree in 'law and business administration', with substantially different transcripts.
AAO inferred willfulness from the Beneficiary's provision of two different sets of diplomas and transcripts and the Petitioner's failure to explain the discrepancies despite the NOID/RFE opportunity.
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 inferred willfulness from the Beneficiary's provision of two different sets of diplomas and transcripts and the Petitioner's failure to explain the discrepancies despite the NOID/RFE opportunity.