The petitioner submitted evidence of participation in musical performances and events, not receipt of prizes or awards. No documentary evidence of any prizes or awards as either performer or music instructor was submitted.
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 evidence of participation in musical performances and events, not receipt of prizes or awards. No documentary evidence of any prizes or awards as either performer or music instructor was submitted.
The petitioner did not submit any evidence of authored scholarly articles in the field. Performances and instruction are not equivalent to authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
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 did not submit any evidence of authored scholarly articles in the field. Performances and instruction are not equivalent to authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Flyers, programs, photographs, advertisements, and other promotional materials are not 'published material' as required by the regulation because they are not independent journalistic coverage. The documents also lacked required title, date, and author information, and there was no evidence of publication in professional or major trade publications or 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 +
Flyers, programs, photographs, advertisements, and other promotional materials are not 'published material' as required by the regulation because they are not independent journalistic coverage. The documents also lacked required title, date, and author information, and there was no evidence of publication in professional or major trade publications or major media.
The petitioner did not demonstrate how her performances constitute original contributions of major significance, and the recommendation letters were vague and did not identify specific original contributions or explain how they had 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 +
The petitioner did not demonstrate how her performances constitute original contributions of major significance, and the recommendation letters were vague and did not identify specific original contributions or explain how they had major significance in the field.
The recommendation letters did not provide specific information establishing that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, and the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating that the organizations have a distinguished reputation.
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 recommendation letters did not provide specific information establishing that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, and the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating that the organizations have a distinguished reputation.
Although evidence showed the petitioner is a member of two associations, she did not submit any documentary evidence reflecting that membership in those associations requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
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 +
Although evidence showed the petitioner is a member of two associations, she did not submit any documentary evidence reflecting that membership in those associations requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Serving as a music instructor in a classroom setting does not constitute participation as a judge of the work of others. The criterion requires a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually.
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 +
Serving as a music instructor in a classroom setting does not constitute participation as a judge of the work of others. The criterion requires a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually.
Advanced degree qualification (foreign equivalent of U.S. master's degree)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that four private credential evaluations were mutually inconsistent in their credit-hour analyses (ranging from 89 to 120 undergraduate credits for the same degree) and unsubstantiated by objective evidence, diminishing their persuasiveness. EDGE, a reliable peer-reviewed source, found the Indian master's degree comparable only to a U.S.…
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 four private credential evaluations were mutually inconsistent in their credit-hour analyses (ranging from 89 to 120 undergraduate credits for the same degree) and unsubstantiated by objective evidence, diminishing their persuasiveness. EDGE, a reliable peer-reviewed source, found the Indian master's degree comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and unsubstantiated claims about EDGE's prior different recommendations were insufficient to overcome EDGE's current findings.
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the antecedent requirement of three types of evidence under Step 1.
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 reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the antecedent requirement of three types of evidence under Step 1.
On appeal, with additional evidence submitted, the petitioner demonstrated it more likely than not had the ability to pay the difference between wages paid to the beneficiary and the proffered wage of $96,762.00 per year from the June 7, 2011 priority date onward.
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 +
On appeal, with additional evidence submitted, the petitioner demonstrated it more likely than not had the ability to pay the difference between wages paid to the beneficiary and the proffered wage of $96,762.00 per year from the June 7, 2011 priority date onward.