Advanced degree must be issued by an accredited U.S. educational institution
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO concluded an accreditation requirement is implicit in the regulation's repeated use of 'United States' degrees, which it read as requiring nationally-recognized (i.e., accredited) institutions, and that post-hoc accreditation of the school does not retroactively qualify a degree awarded before accreditation.
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 concluded an accreditation requirement is implicit in the regulation's repeated use of 'United States' degrees, which it read as requiring nationally-recognized (i.e., accredited) institutions, and that post-hoc accreditation of the school does not retroactively qualify a degree awarded before accreditation.
final merits determination — sustained national/international acclaim at the very top of the field
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that peer review activities, editorial board and expert panel roles, nationally and internationally cited research incorporated into US and Australian clinical guidelines, and expert characterizations of the Petitioner as an elite top clinical researcher collectively establish the Petitioner as among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
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 peer review activities, editorial board and expert panel roles, nationally and internationally cited research incorporated into US and Australian clinical guidelines, and expert characterizations of the Petitioner as an elite top clinical researcher collectively establish the Petitioner as among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
AAO affirmed the Director's finding that criterion (iv) was satisfied, noting that the Petitioner performed peer review for several journals, served on expert panels, and sat on editorial boards.
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 affirmed the Director's finding that criterion (iv) was satisfied, noting that the Petitioner performed peer review for several journals, served on expert panels, and sat on editorial boards.
AAO found the Director erred in two ways: (1) dismissing reference letters without evaluating the corroborating evidence, and (2) making an improper aggregate citation comparison not required by the regulatory language.…
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 Director erred in two ways: (1) dismissing reference letters without evaluating the corroborating evidence, and (2) making an improper aggregate citation comparison not required by the regulatory language. AAO credited corroborated reference letters, inclusion in national clinical guidelines in two countries, and citation data showing four articles from 2011 or later in the top 10% of cited articles in clinical medicine of the same year, finding these establish contributions of major significance.
AAO found the Petitioner played a critical role because he served as one of a limited number of research foundation directors for an organization where research is a major part of its mission, and also contributed to promotional and credentialing activities for a worldwide association with over 75,000 members.…
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 played a critical role because he served as one of a limited number of research foundation directors for an organization where research is a major part of its mission, and also contributed to promotional and credentialing activities for a worldwide association with over 75,000 members. AAO also criticized the Director for wrongly importing contributions-criterion factors into the leading-or-critical-role analysis.
AAO found the totality of the Petitioner's record — peer review activities, widespread citations in both Chinese and English-language journals, critical roles in a major worldwide accounting association — establishes sustained national or international acclaim and qualifies the Petitioner as an individual 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 found the totality of the Petitioner's record — peer review activities, widespread citations in both Chinese and English-language journals, critical roles in a major worldwide accounting association — establishes sustained national or international acclaim and qualifies the Petitioner as an individual of extraordinary ability.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion; AAO also noted that the Director improperly attempted to require evidence of article impact at step 1, which is a final merits consideration only.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion; AAO also noted that the Director improperly attempted to require evidence of article impact at step 1, which is a final merits consideration only.
ability to pay proffered wage (single beneficiary and combined sponsored workers)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the pre-priority-date tax returns were insufficient to establish ability to pay for 2015 and beyond; the 2015 financial statements were mere compilations (not audits) and therefore unreliable; bank statements are not among the prescribed evidence types under 8 C.F.R.…
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 pre-priority-date tax returns were insufficient to establish ability to pay for 2015 and beyond; the 2015 financial statements were mere compilations (not audits) and therefore unreliable; bank statements are not among the prescribed evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot show sustainable ability to pay; and staffing contracts imposed no obligation on the nursing homes to hire the Petitioner's workers.