The petitioner submitted screenshots from patent-tracking websites showing his patent application. AAO found this documentation was not 'about' the petitioner and did not qualify as published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to his work.
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 submitted screenshots from patent-tracking websites showing his patent application. AAO found this documentation was not 'about' the petitioner and did not qualify as published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to his work.
The petitioner argued his 'running machine' should constitute comparable evidence because his achievements were 'latest and yet to come in public.' AAO rejected this, finding that the petitioner failed to explain why the regulatory criteria did not apply to inventors, and that inability to meet a criterion does not establish that the criterion is inapplicable to the 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 argued his 'running machine' should constitute comparable evidence because his achievements were 'latest and yet to come in public.' AAO rejected this, finding that the petitioner failed to explain why the regulatory criteria did not apply to inventors, and that inability to meet a criterion does not establish that the criterion is inapplicable to the occupation.
AAO stated that a full final merits determination was unnecessary given the failure at step 1, but added in the alternative that the aggregate evidence does not demonstrate 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 stated that a full final merits determination was unnecessary given the failure at step 1, but added in the alternative that the aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the required level of expertise.
The petitioner claimed articles were published on certain websites but acknowledged the copies were unavailable or missing. AAO found no documentary evidence of authored scholarly articles in the record.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner claimed articles were published on certain websites but acknowledged the copies were unavailable or missing. AAO found no documentary evidence of authored scholarly articles in the record.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the Executive Director's letter did not specify that the petitioner's role was leading or critical, nor did the petitioner provide comparative evidence of her role relative to other performers. Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that the organization or its productions had a distinguished reputation. The foreign language documents were excluded for lack of translation.
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 Executive Director's letter did not specify that the petitioner's role was leading or critical, nor did the petitioner provide comparative evidence of her role relative to other performers. Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that the organization or its productions had a distinguished reputation. The foreign language documents were excluded for lack of translation.
AAO found that the petitioner's CD lacked evidence of impact or influence on the music industry, the second album had not yet been released and eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and the support letters were vague and conclusory without demonstrating how contributions rose to major significance in 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 +
AAO found that the petitioner's CD lacked evidence of impact or influence on the music industry, the second album had not yet been released and eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and the support letters were vague and conclusory without demonstrating how contributions rose to major significance in the field.
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the alternative that the aggregate evidence does not demonstrate 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 formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the alternative that the aggregate evidence does not demonstrate the required level of expertise.
AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding, concluding that partial translations lack probative value under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), multiple items were missing required title/date/author information, and the petitioner failed to establish that any publication qualified as professional or major trade publications or other major media.
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, concluding that partial translations lack probative value under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), multiple items were missing required title/date/author information, and the petitioner failed to establish that any publication qualified as professional or major trade publications or other major media.
AAO found the petitioner failed to submit documentation of sales or box office receipts demonstrating commercial success relative to others in the performing arts; subsequent post-filing work could not be considered.
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 the petitioner failed to submit documentation of sales or box office receipts demonstrating commercial success relative to others in the performing arts; subsequent post-filing work could not be considered.