Beneficiary must qualify for the specific offered position, not just the classification; the application required experience in the job offered and disallowed alternates, and counsel's contrary intent was unsubstantiated.
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 +
Beneficiary must qualify for the specific offered position, not just the classification; the application required experience in the job offered and disallowed alternates, and counsel's contrary intent was unsubstantiated.
Petitioner did not immediately employ many beneficiaries, and the record lacked information about wages and status of 93 of 115 pending or approved petitions.
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 +
Petitioner did not immediately employ many beneficiaries, and the record lacked information about wages and status of 93 of 115 pending or approved petitions.
intent to employ beneficiary in the offered position
AAO 为什么未被说服
Employment agreement, CFO letter, and client contract describe the Beneficiary as a 'registered nurse,' inconsistent with the Schedule A application's stated nurse-supervisor position.
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 +
Employment agreement, CFO letter, and client contract describe the Beneficiary as a 'registered nurse,' inconsistent with the Schedule A application's stated nurse-supervisor position.
AAO found the record does not support the Director's determination that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field; however, AAO still evaluated the totality of evidence in the final merits determination.
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 the record does not support the Director's determination that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field; however, AAO still evaluated the totality of evidence in the final merits determination.
AAO found the Petitioner's journal articles, conference presentations, advisory role, peer review solicitations, and invitations to publish/present all post-dated the I-140 filing and could not establish eligibility. Even considered, this evidence did not show her research was frequently cited, served as an impetus for progress, generated substantial positive discourse, or affected special education practices.
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's journal articles, conference presentations, advisory role, peer review solicitations, and invitations to publish/present all post-dated the I-140 filing and could not establish eligibility. Even considered, this evidence did not show her research was frequently cited, served as an impetus for progress, generated substantial positive discourse, or affected special education practices.
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner did not provide evidence or information supporting her claim that the prior determination was erroneous and did not identify new facts establishing eligibility under the third prong.
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 found the Petitioner did not provide evidence or information supporting her claim that the prior determination was erroneous and did not identify new facts establishing eligibility under the third prong.
AAO found that the Petitioner's judging experience had significant gaps and did not distinguish her from routine peer reviewers; her publication record lacked recent work and citation rates, though nominally high-percentile, were not shown to be commensurate with extraordinary ability; recommendation letters praised work in theoretical terms without evidence of real-world implementation; and her high salary was only recent,…
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 that the Petitioner's judging experience had significant gaps and did not distinguish her from routine peer reviewers; her publication record lacked recent work and citation rates, though nominally high-percentile, were not shown to be commensurate with extraordinary ability; recommendation letters praised work in theoretical terms without evidence of real-world implementation; and her high salary was only recent, not reflecting a career of acclaimed work.
The Petitioner's new evidence for 2015 and 2016 did not cure the deficiency: wages paid were far below the proffered wage, sister corporation payments are not attributable to the Petitioner, 2015 net income was negative and net current assets were unascertainable, and 2016 financial documents were unaudited and did not qualify under the regulation.…
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 new evidence for 2015 and 2016 did not cure the deficiency: wages paid were far below the proffered wage, sister corporation payments are not attributable to the Petitioner, 2015 net income was negative and net current assets were unascertainable, and 2016 financial documents were unaudited and did not qualify under the regulation. Prior deficiencies for 2010 and 2011 and the multiple-pending-petitions issue remained unaddressed.