The cut ticket requests and retail website screenshots were not comparable to evidence of commercial success as required by the regulation (receipts or sales figures), because the Petitioner did not offer actual sales figures or other documentary evidence of commercial success relative to other retail fashions.
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 cut ticket requests and retail website screenshots were not comparable to evidence of commercial success as required by the regulation (receipts or sales figures), because the Petitioner did not offer actual sales figures or other documentary evidence of commercial success relative to other retail fashions.
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for each claimed organization, and failed to establish that those organizations had a distinguished reputation. The self-promotional company profiles were insufficient, and the letters did not adequately show the Beneficiary's role in the organizational hierarchy or its impact on the companies' standing.
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 failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for each claimed organization, and failed to establish that those organizations had a distinguished reputation. The self-promotional company profiles were insufficient, and the letters did not adequately show the Beneficiary's role in the organizational hierarchy or its impact on the companies' standing.
The submitted articles were about a school fashion show or school events rather than about the Beneficiary personally, and the Petitioner did not establish that the publications constituted major media. A 2012 blog article was about the Beneficiary but the Petitioner did not show the blog qualifies as major media.
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 submitted articles were about a school fashion show or school events rather than about the Beneficiary personally, and the Petitioner did not establish that the publications constituted major media. A 2012 blog article was about the Beneficiary but the Petitioner did not show the blog qualifies as major media.
The record lacked corroborating evidence from major retailers identifying the Beneficiary as the originator of her design style, and the uncorroborated letters from colleagues were insufficient to show that her contributions had widely affected the industry beyond retail partnerships or risen to the level of major significance in the field.
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 record lacked corroborating evidence from major retailers identifying the Beneficiary as the originator of her design style, and the uncorroborated letters from colleagues were insufficient to show that her contributions had widely affected the industry beyond retail partnerships or risen to the level of major significance in the field.
Wages paid to beneficiary and other I-140 beneficiaries equal to or exceeding proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that for 2012 and 2013, the Petitioner paid the instant Beneficiary less than the proffered wage, and 32 other I-140 beneficiaries also received less than their proffered wages, creating aggregate deficiencies of $847,731.21 (2012) and $486,471.74 (2013).
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 for 2012 and 2013, the Petitioner paid the instant Beneficiary less than the proffered wage, and 32 other I-140 beneficiaries also received less than their proffered wages, creating aggregate deficiencies of $847,731.21 (2012) and $486,471.74 (2013).
Net income sufficient to cover wage deficiencies for all I-140 beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's net income ($230,258 in 2012; $283,300 in 2013) was insufficient to cover the aggregate wage deficiencies ($847,731.21 in 2012; $486,471.74 in 2013). AAO rejected the software development cost and rent add-back arguments as unsupported and legally improper.
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 Petitioner's net income ($230,258 in 2012; $283,300 in 2013) was insufficient to cover the aggregate wage deficiencies ($847,731.21 in 2012; $486,471.74 in 2013). AAO rejected the software development cost and rent add-back arguments as unsupported and legally improper.
Totality of circumstances (Sonegawa) demonstrates ability to pay
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO conducted its own Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis and found that the Petitioner's positive business growth in 2014 did not outweigh the consistently large wage deficiencies from 2010 through 2012 compared to net income and net current assets, and that ability to pay must be established from the priority date forward, not based on future eligibility.
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 conducted its own Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis and found that the Petitioner's positive business growth in 2014 did not outweigh the consistently large wage deficiencies from 2010 through 2012 compared to net income and net current assets, and that ability to pay must be established from the priority date forward, not based on future eligibility.
Net current assets sufficient to cover wage deficiencies for all I-140 beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that for 2012, net current assets ($704,598) were less than the aggregate wage deficiency ($847,731.21). AAO rejected bank statements as an acceptable form of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and declined to treat software costs as increasing net current assets.
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 for 2012, net current assets ($704,598) were less than the aggregate wage deficiency ($847,731.21). AAO rejected bank statements as an acceptable form of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and declined to treat software costs as increasing net current assets.
The record established that the Beneficiary exhibited her work at a fashion show and that her fashion designs appeared in a window display, satisfying this criterion.
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 record established that the Beneficiary exhibited her work at a fashion show and that her fashion designs appeared in a window display, satisfying this criterion.
Net current assets sufficient to cover proffered wage deficiencies
AAO 为什么未被说服
In 2012, net current assets of $704,598 were insufficient to cover the $847,731.21 total wage deficiency. Bank statements were rejected as they are not among the enumerated evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and do not demonstrate sustainable 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 +
In 2012, net current assets of $704,598 were insufficient to cover the $847,731.21 total wage deficiency. Bank statements were rejected as they are not among the enumerated evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and do not demonstrate sustainable ability to pay.