license to practice or certification for the profession (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed the short-term in-house attendance certificates do not constitute professional licensure or certification, and rejected the comparable-evidence argument because petitioner did not show the training was limited to high-ranking executives or comparable to formal licensure.
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 agreed the short-term in-house attendance certificates do not constitute professional licensure or certification, and rejected the comparable-evidence argument because petitioner did not show the training was limited to high-ranking executives or comparable to formal licensure.
official academic record relating to the area of exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO withdrew the director's finding because the agricultural engineering degree does not relate to banking, and the claimed banking training certificate was unsupported by documentary 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 withdrew the director's finding because the agricultural engineering degree does not relate to banking, and the claimed banking training certificate was unsupported by documentary evidence.
serves national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the director that the petitioner failed to corroborate key claims with objective evidence, that letters came largely from interested parties rather than independent experts, that the job creation was attributable to the bank's loans rather than the beneficiary specifically, and that demonstrating above-average expertise is insufficient to meet the third NYSDOT prong, which requires a substantially greater be…
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 with the director that the petitioner failed to corroborate key claims with objective evidence, that letters came largely from interested parties rather than independent experts, that the job creation was attributable to the bank's loans rather than the beneficiary specifically, and that demonstrating above-average expertise is insufficient to meet the third NYSDOT prong, which requires a substantially greater benefit to the national interest than an available U.S. worker.
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that NYSDOT's 'some influence' language does not compel approval for any petitioner with more than zero influence, and that influence on an employer or particular group does not meet the standard of influence on the field as a whole. The letters from colleagues lacked corroboration, citation figures were low, and the claimed body of published work was unsubstantiated.
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 NYSDOT's 'some influence' language does not compel approval for any petitioner with more than zero influence, and that influence on an employer or particular group does not meet the standard of influence on the field as a whole. The letters from colleagues lacked corroboration, citation figures were low, and the claimed body of published work was unsubstantiated.
alien influence and control over job opportunity (Modular Container)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Given the beneficiary was the petitioner's sole U.S. employee, handled all U.S. business activities, and was the only person physically receiving mail at the listed office, AAO finds it more likely than not he was involved in and had control over recruitment, and that his pervasive presence made replacement by a U.S. worker unlikely.
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 +
Given the beneficiary was the petitioner's sole U.S. employee, handled all U.S. business activities, and was the only person physically receiving mail at the listed office, AAO finds it more likely than not he was involved in and had control over recruitment, and that his pervasive presence made replacement by a U.S. worker unlikely.
compliance with DOL recruitment requirements / posting notice
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO finds the Internal Job Notice contains pre-printed information (posting/removal dates, '0 resumes received') that could not have been on the document at the time it was supposedly posted, demonstrating the notice is not genuine and casting doubt on the entire recruitment effort.
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 finds the Internal Job Notice contains pre-printed information (posting/removal dates, '0 resumes received') that could not have been on the document at the time it was supposedly posted, demonstrating the notice is not genuine and casting doubt on the entire recruitment effort.