The employer letters described the Petitioner's role as selecting models for fashion shows as part of her employment duties, which does not constitute judging the work of others in the retail or an allied field as required by the criterion.
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 +
The employer letters described the Petitioner's role as selecting models for fashion shows as part of her employment duties, which does not constitute judging the work of others in the retail or an allied field as required by the criterion.
AAO found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked sufficient specificity and national importance. Recommendation letters addressed past contributions and general skills rather than the specific future endeavor and its prospective national impact.…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked sufficient specificity and national importance. Recommendation letters addressed past contributions and general skills rather than the specific future endeavor and its prospective national impact. References to government initiatives and broad healthcare topics did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a researcher at a US office of a Taiwanese company would have national importance.
AAO agreed the Petitioner did not establish national importance: support letters tied benefits to a single Brazilian plant/employer, the Petitioner did not show his methods improve upon existing U.S. practices, and he did not show his work advances STEM technologies broadly or produces substantial positive economic effects.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed the Petitioner did not establish national importance: support letters tied benefits to a single Brazilian plant/employer, the Petitioner did not show his methods improve upon existing U.S. practices, and he did not show his work advances STEM technologies broadly or produces substantial positive economic effects.
AAO found that the Director erred by disregarding printouts of art gallery websites showcasing the Petitioner's work, noting that USCIS policy specifies that artistic exhibition and showcase venues may be 'virtual or otherwise,' and that these printouts from artistic websites constitute qualifying evidence.
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 the Director erred by disregarding printouts of art gallery websites showcasing the Petitioner's work, noting that USCIS policy specifies that artistic exhibition and showcase venues may be 'virtual or otherwise,' and that these printouts from artistic websites constitute qualifying evidence.
AAO agreed the newspaper articles did not meet the criterion because they described influence rather than formal judging. However, AAO disagreed with the Director's rejection of the gallery owner letters, finding that non-party letters do not generally require corroborating evidence, and that one letter specifically stated the Petitioner judged sculptural works and helped determine their final outcome.
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 agreed the newspaper articles did not meet the criterion because they described influence rather than formal judging. However, AAO disagreed with the Director's rejection of the gallery owner letters, finding that non-party letters do not generally require corroborating evidence, and that one letter specifically stated the Petitioner judged sculptural works and helped determine their final outcome.
license or certification for a particular profession or occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Prisma Sat document is equivalent to a professional license or certification related to his occupation.
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 did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Prisma Sat document is equivalent to a professional license or certification related to his occupation.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The letters provide limited details about the Petitioner's work and do not describe significant contributions beyond his immediate employers and clients to the broader industry or field of software development and architecture, as required by the plain language of this criterion.
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 letters provide limited details about the Petitioner's work and do not describe significant contributions beyond his immediate employers and clients to the broader industry or field of software development and architecture, as required by the plain language of this criterion.