single foreign equivalent baccalaureate degree from a college or university
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO concluded the certificate, even if academically comparable to a Bachelor's degree, was not shown to be a single integrated credential from a degree-granting college or university, and the record lacked corroboration of four years of university coursework or institutional oversight.
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 certificate, even if academically comparable to a Bachelor's degree, was not shown to be a single integrated credential from a degree-granting college or university, and the record lacked corroboration of four years of university coursework or institutional oversight.
advanced degree professional qualification (degree from college or university)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director that the Associate Membership is not a degree from a college or university and that the mechanical engineering diploma equates only to one year of U.S. undergraduate study, so the Beneficiary lacks the required 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 with the Director that the Associate Membership is not a degree from a college or university and that the mechanical engineering diploma equates only to one year of U.S. undergraduate study, so the Beneficiary lacks the required foreign equivalent degree.
Ability to pay based on totality of business circumstances (Sonegawa analysis)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Unlike the petitioner in Sonegawa, the instant Petitioner showed no unusual business expenditures or losses to explain its negative financials, no outstanding industry reputation, no showing the Beneficiary would replace a current employee, and the added burden of demonstrating ability to pay multiple 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 +
Unlike the petitioner in Sonegawa, the instant Petitioner showed no unusual business expenditures or losses to explain its negative financials, no outstanding industry reputation, no showing the Beneficiary would replace a current employee, and the added burden of demonstrating ability to pay multiple beneficiaries.
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for multiple pending petitions
AAO 为什么未被说服
USCIS records showed the Petitioner had filed an I-140 petition for another beneficiary that remained pending after the priority date, requiring demonstration of ability to pay combined proffered wages. The record did not establish the combined 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 +
USCIS records showed the Petitioner had filed an I-140 petition for another beneficiary that remained pending after the priority date, requiring demonstration of ability to pay combined proffered wages. The record did not establish the combined ability.
Ability to pay based on wages actually paid to beneficiary
AAO 为什么未被说服
The 2013 payroll records covered only seven of 26 bi-weekly pay periods and showed total payments of only $15,145.20, well below the annual proffered wage; some payments were made months after the work period suggesting lack of funds; the 2014 W-2 showed $53,008.20, below the proffered wage; and 2015 payroll records were too limited in duration to establish ability to pay.
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 2013 payroll records covered only seven of 26 bi-weekly pay periods and showed total payments of only $15,145.20, well below the annual proffered wage; some payments were made months after the work period suggesting lack of funds; the 2014 W-2 showed $53,008.20, below the proffered wage; and 2015 payroll records were too limited in duration to establish ability to pay.
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the correct proffered wage is the DOL-certified wage on the ETA Form 9089, which is $60,133 per year (the low end of the stated range), not the higher figure on the Form I-140.
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 Petitioner that the correct proffered wage is the DOL-certified wage on the ETA Form 9089, which is $60,133 per year (the low end of the stated range), not the higher figure on the Form I-140.
Beneficiary's qualifying experience per labor certification requirements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The labor certification job duties comparison showed the Beneficiary performed only 45% of the same duties in the prior role as in the offered position, falling short of the 50% threshold for 'substantially comparable' positions. Additionally, the Beneficiary's attestations on two different labor certifications were inconsistent as to his employment dates and title with the Petitioner.
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 job duties comparison showed the Beneficiary performed only 45% of the same duties in the prior role as in the offered position, falling short of the 50% threshold for 'substantially comparable' positions. Additionally, the Beneficiary's attestations on two different labor certifications were inconsistent as to his employment dates and title with the Petitioner.
Ability to pay based on prospective government contract
AAO 为什么未被说服
The email did not indicate an actual contract award, only selection of a proposal for a contract the agency 'expects to award' pending negotiations; the contract value was not established; and even if the contract had been awarded, it post-dated the 2013 priority date and could not establish retroactive ability to pay.
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 email did not indicate an actual contract award, only selection of a proposal for a contract the agency 'expects to award' pending negotiations; the contract value was not established; and even if the contract had been awarded, it post-dated the 2013 priority date and could not establish retroactive ability to pay.
Ability to pay based on net income and net current assets
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner's 2013 IRS Form 1120S showed negative net income of $(123,242) and negative net current assets of $(421,828), both precluding a finding of ability to pay.
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 2013 IRS Form 1120S showed negative net income of $(123,242) and negative net current assets of $(421,828), both precluding a finding of ability to pay.