The labor certification required 60 months of experience specifically in the job offered (systems analyst). Because the Petitioner declared in the labor certification that the programmer analyst role was not substantially comparable to the systems analyst role, that experience cannot count as experience 'in the job offered.' Furthermore, even combining all arguably qualifying experience still totals less than 60 months.
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 labor certification required 60 months of experience specifically in the job offered (systems analyst). Because the Petitioner declared in the labor certification that the programmer analyst role was not substantially comparable to the systems analyst role, that experience cannot count as experience 'in the job offered.' Furthermore, even combining all arguably qualifying experience still totals less than 60 months.
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Petitioner conceded at least 4/6 standards readily applied, so comparable evidence is unavailable; corporate tax returns were not shown to be comparable to any specific listed criterion and did not show she stood apart from other small restaurant owners.
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 conceded at least 4/6 standards readily applied, so comparable evidence is unavailable; corporate tax returns were not shown to be comparable to any specific listed criterion and did not show she stood apart from other small restaurant owners.
minimum educational credentials required by the labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO affirmed that the labor certification required an actual master's or foreign equivalent degree and that Part H.8 indicated no alternate combination was acceptable; the Beneficiary's credentials equate only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and Chintakuntla and the 2004 non-precedent decision do not compel a different result.
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 affirmed that the labor certification required an actual master's or foreign equivalent degree and that Part H.8 indicated no alternate combination was acceptable; the Beneficiary's credentials equate only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and Chintakuntla and the 2004 non-precedent decision do not compel a different result.
Petitioner's 2010 W-2 income of $24,000 was below cited average small-business-owner salaries; her 2015 W-2 post-dated the petition's filing and in any event was not shown to reflect exceptional 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 +
Petitioner's 2010 W-2 income of $24,000 was below cited average small-business-owner salaries; her 2015 W-2 post-dated the petition's filing and in any event was not shown to reflect exceptional ability.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions
AAO 为什么未被说服
Chamber of Commerce thank-you letter recognizing financial support and time was not recognition for industry-level achievements; documents post-dated filing; prior E-2 nonimmigrant approvals do not constitute recognition and do not bind USCIS in adjudicating an immigrant petition.
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 +
Chamber of Commerce thank-you letter recognizing financial support and time was not recognition for industry-level achievements; documents post-dated filing; prior E-2 nonimmigrant approvals do not constitute recognition and do not bind USCIS in adjudicating an immigrant petition.