The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the leading or critical role criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
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 AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the leading or critical role criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the original contributions criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
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 AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the original contributions criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the membership criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
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 AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the membership criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
The petitioner abandoned the high salary criterion on appeal, though on motion petitioner argued H-1B status restricted the beneficiary from receiving a high salary. AAO found this argument was abandoned on appeal and did not cite legal authority supporting it.
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 abandoned the high salary criterion on appeal, though on motion petitioner argued H-1B status restricted the beneficiary from receiving a high salary. AAO found this argument was abandoned on appeal and did not cite legal authority supporting it.
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO noted that the cited non-precedent decisions are not binding under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), and the petitioner submitted no evidence establishing that the favorable factors in his case equal or exceed those in the cited decisions. The petitioner's most thorough documentation dates from the 1970s and 1980s, and he has not established realistic prospects for conducting his proposed activities in the United States.
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 noted that the cited non-precedent decisions are not binding under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), and the petitioner submitted no evidence establishing that the favorable factors in his case equal or exceed those in the cited decisions. The petitioner's most thorough documentation dates from the 1970s and 1980s, and he has not established realistic prospects for conducting his proposed activities in the United States.
AAO found the petitioner's assertions of national benefit rested on speculation about future adoption of unpatented inventions, and the original waiver claim based on a specific phosphate prospecting offer in Florida had been effectively abandoned.
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 the petitioner's assertions of national benefit rested on speculation about future adoption of unpatented inventions, and the original waiver claim based on a specific phosphate prospecting offer in Florida had been effectively abandoned.
AAO found the petitioner's claimed inventions were speculative and unsupported by patent filings or evidence of practical adoption. His publication claims were inconsistent and inadequately documented, and his claimed Sjogren's Syndrome contribution was based on a computer system adapted by another researcher rather than the petitioner's own medical work.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the petitioner's claimed inventions were speculative and unsupported by patent filings or evidence of practical adoption. His publication claims were inconsistent and inadequately documented, and his claimed Sjogren's Syndrome contribution was based on a computer system adapted by another researcher rather than the petitioner's own medical work.