Sufficiency of experience letter from former supervisor no longer at employer
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the affidavit from the former supervisor insufficient not merely because she no longer worked there, but because the Petitioner failed to provide any documentary corroboration that the supervisor was employed at the company during the claimed period, even after an RFE. Without establishing the supervisor's own employment history, her attestation could not qualify as reliable evidence of the Beneficiary's employment.
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 affidavit from the former supervisor insufficient not merely because she no longer worked there, but because the Petitioner failed to provide any documentary corroboration that the supervisor was employed at the company during the claimed period, even after an RFE. Without establishing the supervisor's own employment history, her attestation could not qualify as reliable evidence of the Beneficiary's employment.
AAO agreed that professional membership certificates from organizations that are not colleges or universities cannot constitute a foreign equivalent degree, regardless of their educational comparability to a U.S. bachelor's degree. AAO also noted that the AACRAO evaluation assessed combinations of credentials as comparable to a baccalaureate, not any single source credential as a foreign equivalent degree.
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 agreed that professional membership certificates from organizations that are not colleges or universities cannot constitute a foreign equivalent degree, regardless of their educational comparability to a U.S. bachelor's degree. AAO also noted that the AACRAO evaluation assessed combinations of credentials as comparable to a baccalaureate, not any single source credential as a foreign equivalent degree.
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO independently found that the employment verification letters were substantively deficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) because they listed job titles but provided no description of duties performed, and one letter lacked both title and dates of employment.
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 independently found that the employment verification letters were substantively deficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) because they listed job titles but provided no description of duties performed, and one letter lacked both title and dates of employment.
AAO did not reach the exceptional ability analysis because the Beneficiary failed to qualify for the proffered position under the labor certification, which is a prerequisite for any EB-2 classification.
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 did not reach the exceptional ability analysis because the Beneficiary failed to qualify for the proffered position under the labor certification, which is a prerequisite for any EB-2 classification.
Ability to pay proffered wage (including combined obligations for multiple pending petitions)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director's conclusion. The Petitioner's net income alone might have sufficed for one petition, but the Petitioner failed to provide information about approximately 24 other pending petitions, making it impossible to assess combined ability to pay. The Sonegawa other-factors analysis also failed to save the Petitioner given the absence of information about the other pending 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 +
AAO agreed with the Director's conclusion. The Petitioner's net income alone might have sufficed for one petition, but the Petitioner failed to provide information about approximately 24 other pending petitions, making it impossible to assess combined ability to pay. The Sonegawa other-factors analysis also failed to save the Petitioner given the absence of information about the other pending petitions.
Realistic, permanent, full-time job offer as of priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed the job offer lacked bona fides but disagreed with the Director's demand for worksite addresses and beneficiary-specific contracts. AAO found the fatal gap was the Petitioner's failure to submit evidence of prior and ongoing client projects (as the employer in Amsol did), submitting only one contract dated over two years post-priority-date, which was insufficient to show a realistic job offer as of the priority d…
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 agreed the job offer lacked bona fides but disagreed with the Director's demand for worksite addresses and beneficiary-specific contracts. AAO found the fatal gap was the Petitioner's failure to submit evidence of prior and ongoing client projects (as the employer in Amsol did), submitting only one contract dated over two years post-priority-date, which was insufficient to show a realistic job offer as of the priority date.
Discrepancy between visa petition volume and employee count
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that USCIS records did not support the Director's finding; W-2 records showed payments to the vast majority of H-1B and I-140 beneficiaries, indicating actual employment.
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 USCIS records did not support the Director's finding; W-2 records showed payments to the vast majority of H-1B and I-140 beneficiaries, indicating actual employment.
Permanent, full-time nature of the offered position
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed the job offer was not established, though it narrowed the rationale: while it was improper to require specific future contracts and worksite addresses, the Petitioner still failed to show a realistic job offer at the priority date by submitting only one client contract dated over two years after the priority date.
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 agreed the job offer was not established, though it narrowed the rationale: while it was improper to require specific future contracts and worksite addresses, the Petitioner still failed to show a realistic job offer at the priority date by submitting only one client contract dated over two years after the priority date.
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for all pending petitions
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO affirmed the Director's finding. While net income figures exceeded the gap for the Beneficiary alone, the Petitioner failed to account for 21 other concurrent I-140 petitions, making it impossible to assess combined ability to pay. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis also did not save the Petitioner given the missing information.
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 the Director's finding. While net income figures exceeded the gap for the Beneficiary alone, the Petitioner failed to account for 21 other concurrent I-140 petitions, making it impossible to assess combined ability to pay. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis also did not save the Petitioner given the missing information.
The 2015 financial statements were compiled rather than audited, and no 2015 tax return or annual report was submitted, so AAO limited analysis to 2014. In 2014 both net income and net current assets were negative and insufficient to cover the wage gap. The Sonegawa factors did not help the Petitioner, and an outstanding judgment lien further undermined its financial 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 +
The 2015 financial statements were compiled rather than audited, and no 2015 tax return or annual report was submitted, so AAO limited analysis to 2014. In 2014 both net income and net current assets were negative and insufficient to cover the wage gap. The Sonegawa factors did not help the Petitioner, and an outstanding judgment lien further undermined its financial position.