AAO treated the criterion as abandoned on appeal. In considering comparable evidence, AAO also found that the team in question was one of 40 U.S. teams competing nationally and the petitioner did not demonstrate the requirements for membership were comparable to outstanding achievements.
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 treated the criterion as abandoned on appeal. In considering comparable evidence, AAO also found that the team in question was one of 40 U.S. teams competing nationally and the petitioner did not demonstrate the requirements for membership were comparable to outstanding achievements.
AAO treated the criterion as abandoned on appeal. In evaluating comparable evidence, AAO also found that the petitioner had not demonstrated the relevant team enjoyed a distinguished reputation.
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 treated the criterion as abandoned on appeal. In evaluating comparable evidence, AAO also found that the petitioner had not demonstrated the relevant team enjoyed a distinguished reputation.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
证据为何得到认可
On appeal, the petitioner argued that her Olympic team membership should be considered comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). AAO agreed, finding that Olympic team membership is of the same caliber as the regulatory criterion because such teams are limited in membership and have a rigorous selection process, and withdrew the director's adverse finding.
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 +
On appeal, the petitioner argued that her Olympic team membership should be considered comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). AAO agreed, finding that Olympic team membership is of the same caliber as the regulatory criterion because such teams are limited in membership and have a rigorous selection process, and withdrew the director's adverse finding.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The membership letters were conclusory and not supported by the association's bylaws or official membership policies. The evidence did not show that recognized national or international experts judged membership candidates. Memberships in other associations were abandoned on appeal.
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 membership letters were conclusory and not supported by the association's bylaws or official membership policies. The evidence did not show that recognized national or international experts judged membership candidates. Memberships in other associations were abandoned on appeal.
The petitioner's award certificates lacked certified English translations meeting regulatory requirements. The letters from award organizers were insufficient to show recognition beyond the organizing entities. Mere nominations do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion requiring actual receipt of prizes or awards. Other accolades were abandoned on appeal.
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 award certificates lacked certified English translations meeting regulatory requirements. The letters from award organizers were insufficient to show recognition beyond the organizing entities. Mere nominations do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion requiring actual receipt of prizes or awards. Other accolades were abandoned on appeal.
The album sales data came from an unreliable source that did not disclose its methodology. The petitioner did not show what portion of earnings derived from album or ticket sales, did not provide comparable sales data for other artists, and radio airplay is not the type of evidence the criterion requires.
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 album sales data came from an unreliable source that did not disclose its methodology. The petitioner did not show what portion of earnings derived from album or ticket sales, did not provide comparable sales data for other artists, and radio airplay is not the type of evidence the criterion requires.
The reference letters were vague, failed to identify specific original contributions, and many contained virtually identical language suggesting they were not the authors' own words. No letter specifically identified what the petitioner did that was original or demonstrated that her work had a major impact on the field.
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 +
The reference letters were vague, failed to identify specific original contributions, and many contained virtually identical language suggesting they were not the authors' own words. No letter specifically identified what the petitioner did that was original or demonstrated that her work had a major impact on the field.
Newspaper articles were conclusory and did not specify actual earnings or comparative earnings of others. The accountant's letter was based on unsubstantiated information from the petitioner's brother. Contract agreements did not specify the currency. Crucially, the petitioner provided no comparative salary data for others in the 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 +
Newspaper articles were conclusory and did not specify actual earnings or comparative earnings of others. The accountant's letter was based on unsubstantiated information from the petitioner's brother. Contract agreements did not specify the currency. Crucially, the petitioner provided no comparative salary data for others in the field.