AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence and arguments focused on the importance of the financial advisory field and profession generally, and on her own experience and skills, rather than on the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor.…
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 that the Petitioner's evidence and arguments focused on the importance of the financial advisory field and profession generally, and on her own experience and skills, rather than on the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's projections of economic impact did not establish substantial positive economic effects on a national level, and she failed to identify specific economically distressed areas or provide supporting documentation for her claims.
AAO affirmed its prior appeal decision that the Petitioner failed to show her endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects or broader impact on the nutrition field beyond her direct clientele. AAO rejected the argument that employing one U.S.…
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 affirmed its prior appeal decision that the Petitioner failed to show her endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects or broader impact on the nutrition field beyond her direct clientele. AAO rejected the argument that employing one U.S. worker suffices for national importance, noting Dhanasar's use of the plural 'workers.' AAO also found the business plan did not support the broader dissemination activities described by counsel on motion.
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's employment letters were insufficiently detailed to establish five years of progressive experience in the specialty, and on motion the Petitioner offered nothing new to overcome that 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 +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's employment letters were insufficiently detailed to establish five years of progressive experience in the specialty, and on motion the Petitioner offered nothing new to overcome that finding.
AAO reserved this prong in the prior appeal decision because the Petitioner failed to establish the first prong, making it unnecessary to reach the second prong. On the current motion, the issue remains reserved.
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 reserved this prong in the prior appeal decision because the Petitioner failed to establish the first prong, making it unnecessary to reach the second prong. On the current motion, the issue remains reserved.
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
裁决如何说明
AAO reserved this prong in the prior appeal decision because the Petitioner failed to establish the first prong, making it unnecessary to reach the third prong. On the current motion, the issue remains reserved.
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 reserved this prong in the prior appeal decision because the Petitioner failed to establish the first prong, making it unnecessary to reach the third prong. On the current motion, the issue remains reserved.
AAO declined to reach this prong on the prior appeal because the national importance finding under the first prong was dispositive. On the motion, AAO noted the contract submitted relates to this prong but is not relevant to the issue raised on motion (national importance), so it does not constitute new facts.
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 declined to reach this prong on the prior appeal because the national importance finding under the first prong was dispositive. On the motion, AAO noted the contract submitted relates to this prong but is not relevant to the issue raised on motion (national importance), so it does not constitute new facts.
AAO agreed that part H.14's plain language imposes a five-year experience requirement that is not linked to either the primary or alternate experience criteria. Because the text is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence of drafting intent cannot be considered, and DOL's approval does not preclude USCIS from independently assessing the Beneficiary's qualifications.
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 that part H.14's plain language imposes a five-year experience requirement that is not linked to either the primary or alternate experience criteria. Because the text is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence of drafting intent cannot be considered, and DOL's approval does not preclude USCIS from independently assessing the Beneficiary's qualifications.
AAO acknowledged the 1992 education certificate and some Yoruba-language teaching experience in accounting/taxation contexts but found the bulk of the Petitioner's education and experience relates to accounting and finance, not to the Yoruba self-enrichment education endeavor, contrasting unfavorably with typical Yoruba instructors who hold advanced degrees in relevant fields.
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 acknowledged the 1992 education certificate and some Yoruba-language teaching experience in accounting/taxation contexts but found the bulk of the Petitioner's education and experience relates to accounting and finance, not to the Yoruba self-enrichment education endeavor, contrasting unfavorably with typical Yoruba instructors who hold advanced degrees in relevant fields.
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the employment letters contained incongruous and overlapping timeframes that undermined their probative value. An updated self-reported resume without independent corroborating evidence cannot resolve the discrepancies. Additionally, more recent work experience submitted in the RFE response beginning in 2020 cannot establish eligibility as of the April 2019 filing date.
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 that the employment letters contained incongruous and overlapping timeframes that undermined their probative value. An updated self-reported resume without independent corroborating evidence cannot resolve the discrepancies. Additionally, more recent work experience submitted in the RFE response beginning in 2020 cannot establish eligibility as of the April 2019 filing date.