EDGE states a three-year Indian bachelor's degree is comparable to two to three years of U.S. university study and a post-secondary diploma to one year, yielding at most four to five years of study total. AACRAO's own evaluation confirmed the beneficiary's education is comparable to four years of undergraduate-level education but does not constitute the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 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 +
EDGE states a three-year Indian bachelor's degree is comparable to two to three years of U.S. university study and a post-secondary diploma to one year, yielding at most four to five years of study total. AACRAO's own evaluation confirmed the beneficiary's education is comparable to four years of undergraduate-level education but does not constitute the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The two private evaluations were inconsistent with each other and not supported by objective evidence.
Beneficiary meets minimum requirements of the offered position
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary lacks both the required educational credential (bachelor's equivalent) and the required years of qualifying experience (six years), making him ineligible for the proffered position under either alternate pathway in the labor 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 beneficiary lacks both the required educational credential (bachelor's equivalent) and the required years of qualifying experience (six years), making him ineligible for the proffered position under either alternate pathway in the labor certification.
AAO found that credentialing organizations evaluated coursework in the aggregate rather than the single-degree foreign equivalent required by the regulation, and that EDGE classifies the five-year Filipino BS in physical therapy as comparable to a U.S. bachelor's 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 found that credentialing organizations evaluated coursework in the aggregate rather than the single-degree foreign equivalent required by the regulation, and that EDGE classifies the five-year Filipino BS in physical therapy as comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree.
Beneficiary holds advanced degree or foreign equivalent
AAO 为什么未被说服
The credentialing evaluations assess aggregated coursework from multiple sources to determine 'substantial equivalence,' not whether the beneficiary's single degree is a foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. EDGE confirms the five-year Philippine bachelor's in physical therapy equates to undergraduate-level education. The discrepancy between the two evaluations (185.27 vs.…
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 credentialing evaluations assess aggregated coursework from multiple sources to determine 'substantial equivalence,' not whether the beneficiary's single degree is a foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. EDGE confirms the five-year Philippine bachelor's in physical therapy equates to undergraduate-level education. The discrepancy between the two evaluations (185.27 vs. 234 total credits) was not explained by the petitioner. USCIS is not bound by credentialing organization determinations for immigration classification purposes.
Beneficiary meets minimum requirements of ETA Form 9089
AAO 为什么未被说服
The ETA Form 9089 requires a master's degree in physical therapy with no alternate combination accepted. The beneficiary's Philippine bachelor's degree, even supplemented by additional coursework, was not shown to be a single foreign equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in physical therapy.
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 ETA Form 9089 requires a master's degree in physical therapy with no alternate combination accepted. The beneficiary's Philippine bachelor's degree, even supplemented by additional coursework, was not shown to be a single foreign equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in physical therapy.
AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding on de novo review. Post-filing pay stubs could not be considered because eligibility must be established at the time of filing. The remaining evidence—average salary data, median wage data, prevailing wage data, and H-1B LCA data—only showed the petitioner earned above-average or above-median wages, not a high salary relative to others at the top of 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 +
AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding on de novo review. Post-filing pay stubs could not be considered because eligibility must be established at the time of filing. The remaining evidence—average salary data, median wage data, prevailing wage data, and H-1B LCA data—only showed the petitioner earned above-average or above-median wages, not a high salary relative to others at the top of the field.
AAO found that for each employer, the petitioner failed either to demonstrate a leading or critical role (no organizational chart, no differentiation from other team leaders/managers) or to show the organization had a distinguished reputation (no documentary evidence supporting assertions about rankings or revenues).…
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 for each employer, the petitioner failed either to demonstrate a leading or critical role (no organizational chart, no differentiation from other team leaders/managers) or to show the organization had a distinguished reputation (no documentary evidence supporting assertions about rankings or revenues). The regulatory criterion requires both elements, and the petitioner's plain statement that technology firms may not have a distinguished reputation does not relieve him of the requirement.
AAO found that routine supervisory duties such as reviewing coworkers' performance, interviewing candidates, providing feedback, and testing/reviewing a software product purchased by the employer do not constitute formal participation as a judge of the work of others in the field as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).…
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that routine supervisory duties such as reviewing coworkers' performance, interviewing candidates, providing feedback, and testing/reviewing a software product purchased by the employer do not constitute formal participation as a judge of the work of others in the field as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The criterion requires a formal judging designation, not informal staff supervision or internal review of coworkers.
The competitions confer a substantial number of awards annually, the Silver award was presented to a magazine rather than the beneficiary, and there is no documentary evidence showing the awards are recognized beyond the competition organizers at a level commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence 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 competitions confer a substantial number of awards annually, the Silver award was presented to a magazine rather than the beneficiary, and there is no documentary evidence showing the awards are recognized beyond the competition organizers at a level commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field.
The October article did not identify its author as required by the regulation, and there is no documentary evidence showing that the publication is a form of major media in the United States or Israel.
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 October article did not identify its author as required by the regulation, and there is no documentary evidence showing that the publication is a form of major media in the United States or Israel.