AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
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 conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has served as a judge at competitions, and AAO found that the Petitioner demonstrated he meets this criterion.
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 +
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has served as a judge at competitions, and AAO found that the Petitioner demonstrated he meets this criterion.
The AAO found that the Form 9141 in the record on appeal shows the position requires only 35 hours per week, not 40, so the Director's wage calculation was erroneous. With the correct figure, the Petitioner's financial evidence establishes 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 +
The AAO found that the Form 9141 in the record on appeal shows the position requires only 35 hours per week, not 40, so the Director's wage calculation was erroneous. With the correct figure, the Petitioner's financial evidence establishes ability to pay.
Beneficiary qualifications per labor certification
证据为何得到认可
After reviewing additional documentation submitted in response to the RFE, AAO accepted that the Beneficiary has the requisite education and experience to meet the labor certification's alternate requirement of a bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience.
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 +
After reviewing additional documentation submitted in response to the RFE, AAO accepted that the Beneficiary has the requisite education and experience to meet the labor certification's alternate requirement of a bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience.
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate continuing ability to pay from the January 15, 2013 priority date. The Beneficiary was underpaid by $1,778.10 in 2013, and the Petitioner's net current assets of $7,907 were insufficient when accounting for the combined shortfall of $69,433.86 owed to two other I-140 beneficiaries in 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 +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate continuing ability to pay from the January 15, 2013 priority date. The Beneficiary was underpaid by $1,778.10 in 2013, and the Petitioner's net current assets of $7,907 were insufficient when accounting for the combined shortfall of $69,433.86 owed to two other I-140 beneficiaries in 2013. Missing W-2s and tax return for 2015 further prevented a complete showing, and the overall business trajectory showed decline rather than growth.
Beneficiary possession of required 5 years qualifying experience by priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner's own letter established only ~3 years 2 months of pre-priority-date qualifying experience. No corroborating letter from the claimed Indian employer was submitted to establish the additional ~4 years 7 months of foreign experience, leaving the Beneficiary short of the required 5-year minimum.
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 own letter established only ~3 years 2 months of pre-priority-date qualifying experience. No corroborating letter from the claimed Indian employer was submitted to establish the additional ~4 years 7 months of foreign experience, leaving the Beneficiary short of the required 5-year minimum.
Ability to pay via net income and net current assets
AAO 为什么未被说服
The 2014 tax return and financial statements reflected negative net income and net current assets, failing to cover the difference between wages paid and the proffered wage. The 2015 financials were sufficient individually but did not cure the 2014 deficiency, and the 2015 profits appeared to result from a one-time $60 million sale.
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 2014 tax return and financial statements reflected negative net income and net current assets, failing to cover the difference between wages paid and the proffered wage. The 2015 financials were sufficient individually but did not cure the 2014 deficiency, and the 2015 profits appeared to result from a one-time $60 million sale.
Ability to pay via totality of business circumstances (Sonegawa factors)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner could not document that its 2014 financial losses were aberrational compared to prior years, as the record contained only 2014 and 2015 tax/financial data and a net operating loss carryover indicated prior losses too. Business reputation was unsupported by documentation, and the Petitioner faced a heavier burden than Sonegawa because it had multiple pending I-140 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 +
The Petitioner could not document that its 2014 financial losses were aberrational compared to prior years, as the record contained only 2014 and 2015 tax/financial data and a net operating loss carryover indicated prior losses too. Business reputation was unsupported by documentation, and the Petitioner faced a heavier burden than Sonegawa because it had multiple pending I-140 petitions.
The Beneficiary was paid $66,633.49 in 2014 and $77,906.39 in 2015, neither of which equaled the annual proffered wage of $91,520. The prorated 2014 wage after the priority date was also not met.
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 Beneficiary was paid $66,633.49 in 2014 and $77,906.39 in 2015, neither of which equaled the annual proffered wage of $91,520. The prorated 2014 wage after the priority date was also not met.
The bank account funds were presumed to be already included in the current asset amounts reflected in the 2014 tax return and financial statements, which were already considered in the net current asset analysis. The bank statements therefore added nothing new.
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 bank account funds were presumed to be already included in the current asset amounts reflected in the 2014 tax return and financial statements, which were already considered in the net current asset analysis. The bank statements therefore added nothing new.