AAO agreed that without corroborating circulation data and comparative media market analyses, the publications, blogs, and television interviews could not be established as major media. Advertisements written by or on behalf of the Petitioner are self-promotional and not probative.
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 without corroborating circulation data and comparative media market analyses, the publications, blogs, and television interviews could not be established as major media. Advertisements written by or on behalf of the Petitioner are self-promotional and not probative.
AAO found that while the Petitioner is a well-known local artist whose work has been purchased and used by local businesses, the evidence does not show her work has influenced the broader fields of photography or fashion design. Magazine cover credits and museum inclusion were not shown to constitute contributions of major significance.
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 found that while the Petitioner is a well-known local artist whose work has been purchased and used by local businesses, the evidence does not show her work has influenced the broader fields of photography or fashion design. Magazine cover credits and museum inclusion were not shown to constitute contributions of major significance.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
证据为何得到认可
AAO overturned the Director's finding as to one restaurant, concluding that evidence showing the Petitioner redesigned the entire restaurant, installed artwork, and contributed to increased customer traffic and a national award nomination demonstrated a critical role for that establishment.
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 overturned the Director's finding as to one restaurant, concluding that evidence showing the Petitioner redesigned the entire restaurant, installed artwork, and contributed to increased customer traffic and a national award nomination demonstrated a critical role for that establishment.
The Petitioner's 2016 net income of $19,583 and net current assets of $30,904 are each less than the $36,405.44 shortfall between the proffered wage and wages paid, so neither satisfies the ability-to-pay requirement.
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 Petitioner's 2016 net income of $19,583 and net current assets of $30,904 are each less than the $36,405.44 shortfall between the proffered wage and wages paid, so neither satisfies the ability-to-pay requirement.
The Petitioner paid $45,546.56 in 2016, which does not meet the $81,952 annual proffered wage. USCIS policy does not permit proration of the proffered wage, and even if it did, the W-2 includes pre-priority-date payments and so would not establish ability to pay the prorated wage after the priority date.
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 Petitioner paid $45,546.56 in 2016, which does not meet the $81,952 annual proffered wage. USCIS policy does not permit proration of the proffered wage, and even if it did, the W-2 includes pre-priority-date payments and so would not establish ability to pay the prorated wage after the priority date.
AAO considered the Sonegawa factors but found them insufficient. The missing information about combined wage obligations prevented a full analysis, and while the Petitioner had operated since 2011 and employed 16 people with growing revenues, it lacked a historical growth pattern, failed to address Sonegawa mitigating factors, and faced a substantial time period requiring ability to pay.
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 considered the Sonegawa factors but found them insufficient. The missing information about combined wage obligations prevented a full analysis, and while the Petitioner had operated since 2011 and employed 16 people with growing revenues, it lacked a historical growth pattern, failed to address Sonegawa mitigating factors, and faced a substantial time period requiring ability to pay.
A petitioner must demonstrate ability to pay combined proffered wages for all concurrent petitions. The Petitioner did not provide the required evidence, and it was the Petitioner's burden to do so—the Director's decision notified it of the deficiency and the Petitioner could have submitted the evidence on appeal but did not.
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 +
A petitioner must demonstrate ability to pay combined proffered wages for all concurrent petitions. The Petitioner did not provide the required evidence, and it was the Petitioner's burden to do so—the Director's decision notified it of the deficiency and the Petitioner could have submitted the evidence on appeal but did not.
Although the Petitioner showed continuous operations since 2011 and some revenue growth, it provided no historical data prior to 2015, did not claim uncharacteristic losses, had no evidence of outstanding industry reputation, and did not show replacement of a current employee. The need to cover combined proffered wages for multiple petitions further distinguished this case from Sonegawa.
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 +
Although the Petitioner showed continuous operations since 2011 and some revenue growth, it provided no historical data prior to 2015, did not claim uncharacteristic losses, had no evidence of outstanding industry reputation, and did not show replacement of a current employee. The need to cover combined proffered wages for multiple petitions further distinguished this case from Sonegawa.