AAO found that the petitioner's arguments about national education policy goals describe collective impacts rather than the national scope of her individual employment. Her direct influence does not extend beyond her own classroom and immediate school.
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 +
AAO found that the petitioner's arguments about national education policy goals describe collective impacts rather than the national scope of her individual employment. Her direct influence does not extend beyond her own classroom and immediate school.
Petitioner submitted only a job offer rather than evidence of actual salary earned, and the prevailing wage figures reflect the wage paid to the majority of fully competent managers, not high salaries relative to those in the field.
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 +
Petitioner submitted only a job offer rather than evidence of actual salary earned, and the prevailing wage figures reflect the wage paid to the majority of fully competent managers, not high salaries relative to those in the field.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
Letters discussed prospective duties at petitioner; no organizational chart showing position within hierarchy; self-promotional materials insufficient to show distinguished reputation; new appellate testimonials not accepted.
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 +
Letters discussed prospective duties at petitioner; no organizational chart showing position within hierarchy; self-promotional materials insufficient to show distinguished reputation; new appellate testimonials not accepted.
Initial letters were vague and limited to former coworkers describing internal contributions; the regulation requires impact beyond the employer; new appellate letters cannot be considered under Soriano/Obaigbena.
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 +
Initial letters were vague and limited to former coworkers describing internal contributions; the regulation requires impact beyond the employer; new appellate letters cannot be considered under Soriano/Obaigbena.
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the petitioner had not demonstrated a past record of individual achievement sufficient to project future benefit substantially greater than a U.S. worker. His expert letters were not corroborated by objective evidence, and the claim that the field would suffer without him was not supported. His prospective benefit was speculative.
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 found that the petitioner had not demonstrated a past record of individual achievement sufficient to project future benefit substantially greater than a U.S. worker. His expert letters were not corroborated by objective evidence, and the claim that the field would suffer without him was not supported. His prospective benefit was speculative.