AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion based on prior decisions; not separately argued in the instant motion.
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 reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion based on prior decisions; not separately argued in the instant motion.
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the published material criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
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 reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the published material criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the original contributions criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
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 reaffirmed its prior finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the original contributions criterion; no new legal argument or evidence was presented.
Net income sufficient to cover difference between proffered and actual wages
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner's tax returns showed net losses of approximately $3.0 million in 2013 and $3.4 million in 2014. The CFO's assertions about future revenue growth were unsupported by documentary evidence and could not substitute for the required financial proof.
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 tax returns showed net losses of approximately $3.0 million in 2013 and $3.4 million in 2014. The CFO's assertions about future revenue growth were unsupported by documentary evidence and could not substitute for the required financial proof.
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for all pending/approved I-140 beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner filed I-140 petitions for two other beneficiaries but only provided wage and priority date information for one. Without complete information for all beneficiaries, the AAO could not determine whether the Petitioner could meet its combined proffered-wage obligations.
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 filed I-140 petitions for two other beneficiaries but only provided wage and priority date information for one. Without complete information for all beneficiaries, the AAO could not determine whether the Petitioner could meet its combined proffered-wage obligations.
Wages paid to beneficiary equal to or greater than proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Beneficiary was paid $78,833.36 in 2013 and $73,929.81 in 2014, both below the $82,971.00 proffered wage. The AAO rejected the unpaid-vacation explanation, noting the proffered wage is an annual wage and actual wages paid are determinative.
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 $78,833.36 in 2013 and $73,929.81 in 2014, both below the $82,971.00 proffered wage. The AAO rejected the unpaid-vacation explanation, noting the proffered wage is an annual wage and actual wages paid are determinative.
AAO declined to conduct the final merits determination because the petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of three criteria at step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record 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 declined to conduct the final merits determination because the petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of three criteria at step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not support the required level of expertise.
AAO determined, on de novo review of the entire record, that the Petitioner more likely than not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date up to the present.
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 determined, on de novo review of the entire record, that the Petitioner more likely than not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date up to the present.