Both the director and AAO found that the Petitioner's work as a physician in cardiology is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. AAO explicitly stated this was established and moved on to the remaining prongs.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Both the director and AAO found that the Petitioner's work as a physician in cardiology is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. AAO explicitly stated this was established and moved on to the remaining prongs.
AAO found the evidence was a limited and selective comparison that did not establish the Petitioner commanded a high salary relative to others in the field as a whole, and there was no objective earnings data for broader comparison.
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 evidence was a limited and selective comparison that did not establish the Petitioner commanded a high salary relative to others in the field as a whole, and there was no objective earnings data for broader comparison.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the letters made general statements without specific information establishing a leading or critical role, and the Petitioner provided no documentation to establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
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 letters made general statements without specific information establishing a leading or critical role, and the Petitioner provided no documentation to establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
AAO found that some articles were not 'about' the petitioner as required, some lacked sufficient author identification, and the documentation regarding publication status was inconsistent and unreliable. Circulation figures provided were not demonstrated to be reflective of major media status.
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 some articles were not 'about' the petitioner as required, some lacked sufficient author identification, and the documentation regarding publication status was inconsistent and unreliable. Circulation figures provided were not demonstrated to be reflective of major media status.
EDGE, treated by federal courts as a reliable peer-reviewed source, rates the dyplom tytul magister inzynier as equivalent to only a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted credential evaluations conflicted with EDGE and with each other, and counsel's unsupported attack on EDGE's reliability did not constitute evidence.…
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 +
EDGE, treated by federal courts as a reliable peer-reviewed source, rates the dyplom tytul magister inzynier as equivalent to only a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted credential evaluations conflicted with EDGE and with each other, and counsel's unsupported attack on EDGE's reliability did not constitute evidence. The Beneficiary also lacked the requisite five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty.
Beneficiary holds an advanced degree (or foreign equivalent), or a U.S. bachelor's/foreign equivalent plus 5 years progressive experience
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO concluded the combined credentials produce only the 'equivalent' of a bachelor's degree, not a single foreign equivalent degree, and EDGE confirms the Bachelor of Computer Applications is comparable to only two to three years of U.S. university study.
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 the combined credentials produce only the 'equivalent' of a bachelor's degree, not a single foreign equivalent degree, and EDGE confirms the Bachelor of Computer Applications is comparable to only two to three years of U.S. university study.
AAO reserved the full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy three criteria, but noted in the aggregate the evidence does not support the required level of expertise.
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 reserved the full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy three criteria, but noted in the aggregate the evidence does not support the required level of expertise.
intent to continue work in area of expertise in the U.S.
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's single letter lacked specific plans and no supporting documentation such as prospective employer letters or prearranged contracts was submitted, failing to meet the 'clear evidence' standard of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5).
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 single letter lacked specific plans and no supporting documentation such as prospective employer letters or prearranged contracts was submitted, failing to meet the 'clear evidence' standard of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5).
While the Petitioner's net income in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 exceeded the proffered wage, the Petitioner had at least one other pending I-140 petition and failed to provide any information about that other petition. Without knowing the proffered wage for the other beneficiary and whether that petition remained active, USCIS could not determine whether the Petitioner could pay all its sponsored beneficiaries.
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 +
While the Petitioner's net income in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 exceeded the proffered wage, the Petitioner had at least one other pending I-140 petition and failed to provide any information about that other petition. Without knowing the proffered wage for the other beneficiary and whether that petition remained active, USCIS could not determine whether the Petitioner could pay all its sponsored beneficiaries.