national interest served to substantially greater degree than a U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
The claim that no U.S. worker applied for the petitioner's position does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. The petitioner's past performance does not justify projections of future benefit sufficient to meet this standard.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The claim that no U.S. worker applied for the petitioner's position does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. The petitioner's past performance does not justify projections of future benefit sufficient to meet this standard.
The petitioner's restaurant had so far established only a local foothold; his claims of impacting millions through social media were unsupported by evidence; and his plans for national expansion remained speculative.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner's restaurant had so far established only a local foothold; his claims of impacting millions through social media were unsupported by evidence; and his plans for national expansion remained speculative.
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that her individual contributions have had or will have a nationally significant impact. Her awards were at the student or resident level, her teaching was inherently temporary, documentary support for many claimed activities was absent, and she did not submit evidence of the impact of her published work such as citing articles.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO agreed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that her individual contributions have had or will have a nationally significant impact. Her awards were at the student or resident level, her teaching was inherently temporary, documentary support for many claimed activities was absent, and she did not submit evidence of the impact of her published work such as citing articles.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that the petitioner did submit supporting documentation indicating that his work was exhibited at artistic exhibitions or showcases, and withdrew the director's adverse decision on 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 +
AAO found that the petitioner did submit supporting documentation indicating that his work was exhibited at artistic exhibitions or showcases, and withdrew the director's adverse decision on this criterion.
The petitioner did not contest the director's findings on this criterion in the appellate brief and offered no additional arguments, so the issue is considered abandoned.
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 petitioner did not contest the director's findings on this criterion in the appellate brief and offered no additional arguments, so the issue is considered abandoned.
Six months of experience as Computer Systems Analyst/Senior Systems Analyst with required skills
证据为何得到认可
AAO found the new experience letter and employment screen established that the beneficiary was employed full-time as a Senior System Analyst with the required skills, satisfying the six-month experience requirement of 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 +
AAO found the new experience letter and employment screen established that the beneficiary was employed full-time as a Senior System Analyst with the required skills, satisfying the six-month experience requirement of the labor certification.
Foreign equivalent of U.S. Master's degree in Computer Science
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that none of the six evaluations overcame EDGE's credentials advice. The first evaluator provided no discussion of the basis for his conclusion. The second focused on discounting EDGE rather than analyzing the beneficiary's academics. The third's course-comparison relied on non-Computer-Science-specific curricula.…
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 none of the six evaluations overcame EDGE's credentials advice. The first evaluator provided no discussion of the basis for his conclusion. The second focused on discounting EDGE rather than analyzing the beneficiary's academics. The third's course-comparison relied on non-Computer-Science-specific curricula. The fourth and fifth evaluations contained extensive identical language indicating they were not independently authored. The sixth evaluation relied on a 2007-2008 curriculum to evaluate a degree completed in 1998, without addressing the temporal discrepancy, and was further undermined by a supporting statement that appeared to have been altered.