leading or critical role for distinguished organization
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO withdrew the director's finding that the beneficiary performed in a leading role but still upheld the overall denial. The petitioner submitted no corroborating documentation of the beneficiary's role, and abandoned the distinguished reputation issue on appeal by failing to address it. Website screenshots did not show distinguished reputation for either employer.
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 withdrew the director's finding that the beneficiary performed in a leading role but still upheld the overall denial. The petitioner submitted no corroborating documentation of the beneficiary's role, and abandoned the distinguished reputation issue on appeal by failing to address it. Website screenshots did not show distinguished reputation for either employer.
The beneficiary is a mechanical engineer, not a performing artist, so the plain language of criterion (x) does not apply. Comparable evidence was also unavailable because the petitioner failed to establish the criteria do not readily apply. No documentary evidence supported the sales and profit assertions.
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 is a mechanical engineer, not a performing artist, so the plain language of criterion (x) does not apply. Comparable evidence was also unavailable because the petitioner failed to establish the criteria do not readily apply. No documentary evidence supported the sales and profit assertions.
The W-2 and paystub postdated the 2009 petition filing and could not establish eligibility. The BLS data submitted on appeal also reflected 2013 figures. The petitioner provided no documentary evidence of the beneficiary's actual 2009 salary, and average salary statistics do not satisfy the requirement to show a high salary relative to 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 +
The W-2 and paystub postdated the 2009 petition filing and could not establish eligibility. The BLS data submitted on appeal also reflected 2013 figures. The petitioner provided no documentary evidence of the beneficiary's actual 2009 salary, and average salary statistics do not satisfy the requirement to show a high salary relative to others in the field.
The article submitted was about a blow molding machine and never mentioned the beneficiary, failing the requirement that published material be 'about the alien.' Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate the website constitutes major media, and the article lacked required translation certification.
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 article submitted was about a blow molding machine and never mentioned the beneficiary, failing the requirement that published material be 'about the alien.' Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate the website constitutes major media, and the article lacked required translation certification.
A patent shows originality but not major significance in the field. The reference letters about the blow molding machine contained identical or near-identical language, undermining their credibility, and none demonstrated the machine's broad impact or influence on the field as a whole.
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 +
A patent shows originality but not major significance in the field. The reference letters about the blow molding machine contained identical or near-identical language, undermining their credibility, and none demonstrated the machine's broad impact or influence on the field as a whole.
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the petitioner failed Step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate 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 declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the petitioner failed Step 1, but noted in dicta that the aggregate evidence does not support the required level of expertise.
The petitioner's ITTF ranking postdated the filing date and could not be considered; even if considered, a high national ranking does not demonstrate a major internationally recognized award.
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 ITTF ranking postdated the filing date and could not be considered; even if considered, a high national ranking does not demonstrate a major internationally recognized award.
Even assuming the rankings are relevant to the contributions criterion, they do not establish contributions of major significance sufficient to satisfy criterion (v).
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 +
Even assuming the rankings are relevant to the contributions criterion, they do not establish contributions of major significance sufficient to satisfy criterion (v).
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
证据为何得到认可
The director concluded the petitioner meets criterion (i) for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and the AAO did not disturb this 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 +
The director concluded the petitioner meets criterion (i) for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and the AAO did not disturb this finding.