on balance, beneficial to waive job offer requirement
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO reaffirmed that the Petitioner had not demonstrated she meets the third prong, and the current motion offered no new facts or evidence to the contrary.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO reaffirmed that the Petitioner had not demonstrated she meets the third prong, and the current motion offered no new facts or evidence to the contrary.
AAO found that the petitioner's service selecting technical papers for publication on a technical committee satisfied the judging criterion, though the peer assists and recruiter activities did not clearly involve judging the work of others.
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 found that the petitioner's service selecting technical papers for publication on a technical committee satisfied the judging criterion, though the peer assists and recruiter activities did not clearly involve judging the work of others.
Beneficiary possesses five years of qualifying post-baccalaureate experience in the job offered
AAO 为什么未被说服
The documentary evidence covered only three years of experience at the law firm, not five. The overlapping employment discrepancy with the other Brazilian company was not resolved with independent evidence—counsel's assertion that the travel agent made a mistake does not constitute evidence. The 2007 visa application listing occupation as 'lawyer' was also never adequately explained.
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 documentary evidence covered only three years of experience at the law firm, not five. The overlapping employment discrepancy with the other Brazilian company was not resolved with independent evidence—counsel's assertion that the travel agent made a mistake does not constitute evidence. The 2007 visa application listing occupation as 'lawyer' was also never adequately explained.
AAO did not address the first prong in this motion; the Director had found the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification, and the motion focused on the second and third prongs.
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 did not address the first prong in this motion; the Director had found the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification, and the motion focused on the second and third prongs.
AAO found the Petitioner again failed to show that former counsels' actions prejudiced the outcome, and she offered no new evidence establishing she meets this prong.
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 Petitioner again failed to show that former counsels' actions prejudiced the outcome, and she offered no new evidence establishing she meets this prong.
AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found the record did not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner failed to identify the location of business/assembly operations, did not provide adequate evidence of significant job creation or substantial economic effects, and did not demonstrate plans for wide distribution of the product to vulnerable popula…
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 had substantial merit but found the record did not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner failed to identify the location of business/assembly operations, did not provide adequate evidence of significant job creation or substantial economic effects, and did not demonstrate plans for wide distribution of the product to vulnerable populations at a scale consistent with national importance.
offered position requires a professional with an advanced degree
证据为何得到认可
AAO read the labor certification as a whole, gave dispositive weight to H.14's summary of education and experience required, and found the recruitment confirmed the advanced-degree 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 +
AAO read the labor certification as a whole, gave dispositive weight to H.14's summary of education and experience required, and found the recruitment confirmed the advanced-degree requirement.
continuing ability to pay combined proffered wages
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the wages paid did not equal the proffered wage, no regulatory-prescribed evidence covered 2017 onward, and the financial officer letter was insufficient given multiple I-140 filings and unresolved consolidated-return ambiguities.
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 wages paid did not equal the proffered wage, no regulatory-prescribed evidence covered 2017 onward, and the financial officer letter was insufficient given multiple I-140 filings and unresolved consolidated-return ambiguities.