Two citations are insufficient to show major significance; recommendation letters contain near-identical language suggesting they were not authored independently and lack specifics demonstrating field-wide impact.
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 +
Two citations are insufficient to show major significance; recommendation letters contain near-identical language suggesting they were not authored independently and lack specifics demonstrating field-wide impact.
The AAO afforded little weight to the inconsistent private credential evaluations but found the EDGE report reliable, concluding the beneficiary's MBA equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree; combined with undisputed qualifying experience, the beneficiary meets the advanced degree equivalency standard.
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 afforded little weight to the inconsistent private credential evaluations but found the EDGE report reliable, concluding the beneficiary's MBA equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree; combined with undisputed qualifying experience, the beneficiary meets the advanced degree equivalency standard.
The AAO afforded little weight to the credential evaluations due to unresolved inconsistencies, and found that even if the beneficiary held the equivalent of a bachelor's in business administration with a CIS concentration, the major field would be business administration rather than computer science or a related field, so the labor certification requirement was not met.
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 afforded little weight to the credential evaluations due to unresolved inconsistencies, and found that even if the beneficiary held the equivalent of a bachelor's in business administration with a CIS concentration, the major field would be business administration rather than computer science or a related field, so the labor certification requirement was not met.
AAO agreed the petitioner could not pay the proffered wage based on wages paid, net income, or net current assets, and rejected the alternative arguments grounded in the president's personal finances, bank balances, and future growth projections.
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 petitioner could not pay the proffered wage based on wages paid, net income, or net current assets, and rejected the alternative arguments grounded in the president's personal finances, bank balances, and future growth projections.
beneficiary meets labor certification experience and skill requirements
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the experience letters did not establish the H.14 specific skills (UI design, HCI, health-care related projects) and that dates conflicted between the labor certification, employer letters, and the beneficiary's transcripts, leaving unresolved inconsistencies under Matter of Ho.
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 experience letters did not establish the H.14 specific skills (UI design, HCI, health-care related projects) and that dates conflicted between the labor certification, employer letters, and the beneficiary's transcripts, leaving unresolved inconsistencies under Matter of Ho.
The director had in fact issued an RFE on February 4, 2013, and properly exercised his discretion to deny based on the submitted evidence; the regulation provides discretionary authority.
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 director had in fact issued an RFE on February 4, 2013, and properly exercised his discretion to deny based on the submitted evidence; the regulation provides discretionary authority.
Petitioner failed to show her role was leading or critical for the organizations as a whole rather than just for individual shows; Wikipedia evidence was discounted; self-promotional material was insufficient to establish distinguished reputation; and the TV letter was vague and unsupported.
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 failed to show her role was leading or critical for the organizations as a whole rather than just for individual shows; Wikipedia evidence was discounted; self-promotional material was insufficient to establish distinguished reputation; and the TV letter was vague and unsupported.
The articles are about shows rather than about the petitioner; promotional materials do not constitute published material; an interview recording is not published material about the petitioner; websites were not shown to be major media; and several items lacked required title, date, or author information.
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 articles are about shows rather than about the petitioner; promotional materials do not constitute published material; an interview recording is not published material about the petitioner; websites were not shown to be major media; and several items lacked required title, date, or author information.