judging the work of others in the same or allied field
AAO 为什么未被说服
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined to submit evidence at that stage, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
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 +
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined to submit evidence at that stage, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
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 +
Because the petitioner was on notice of the deficiency and had an opportunity to respond in the RFE but declined, AAO refused to consider the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
裁决如何说明
The petitioner did not identify any factual or legal error relating to this criterion on appeal, so USCIS concluded the petitioner abandoned this claim.
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 did not identify any factual or legal error relating to this criterion on appeal, so USCIS concluded the petitioner abandoned this claim.
Net income ($10,276 in 2009; $3,891 in 2010) and net current assets ($33,624 in 2009; $0 in 2010) were both insufficient to bridge the gap between wages paid ($28,000 in 2009; $49,500 in 2010) and the proffered wage ($74,880/year). Bank statements are not among the enumerated types of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot demonstrate sustainable ability to pay.…
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 +
Net income ($10,276 in 2009; $3,891 in 2010) and net current assets ($33,624 in 2009; $0 in 2010) were both insufficient to bridge the gap between wages paid ($28,000 in 2009; $49,500 in 2010) and the proffered wage ($74,880/year). Bank statements are not among the enumerated types of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot demonstrate sustainable ability to pay. The leave-of-absence argument was unsupported by paystubs or documentation. Projected future income is impermissible under Matter of Great Wall. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis also failed for lack of supporting evidence on historical growth, reputation, or other factors. The petitioner also failed to address its obligation to pay all ten concurrently filed I-140 beneficiaries.
The two experience letters submitted did not specify whether the beneficiary's work was full-time or part-time, making it impossible to confirm the required five years of progressive experience as a software engineer.
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 two experience letters submitted did not specify whether the beneficiary's work was full-time or part-time, making it impossible to confirm the required five years of progressive experience as a software engineer.
The record did not establish that the petitioner actually paid employee salaries, employed anyone directly, or would serve as the beneficiary's actual employer, failing the common-law control test.
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 record did not establish that the petitioner actually paid employee salaries, employed anyone directly, or would serve as the beneficiary's actual employer, failing the common-law control test.
one year of qualifying employment abroad in the three years preceding admission
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO finds the inconsistencies unresolved and counsel's explanations unsupported by independent evidence; the appointment certificate dated February 18, 2008 implausibly states exact employment end dates, and the petitioner has not shown the requisite one year of qualifying foreign employment.
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 finds the inconsistencies unresolved and counsel's explanations unsupported by independent evidence; the appointment certificate dated February 18, 2008 implausibly states exact employment end dates, and the petitioner has not shown the requisite one year of qualifying foreign employment.
prospective employment in the U.S. in a managerial or executive capacity
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO finds the NOID-response duty list bore almost no resemblance to the originally provided description, includes non-executive tasks like daily warehouse tours and meetings with a database administrator, and that counsel's typographical-error explanation for the employee-count discrepancy is 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 +
AAO finds the NOID-response duty list bore almost no resemblance to the originally provided description, includes non-executive tasks like daily warehouse tours and meetings with a database administrator, and that counsel's typographical-error explanation for the employee-count discrepancy is unsupported.
employment abroad in a managerial or executive capacity
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO finds the duties overly general and vague, with no detail as to daily activities, and notes that the unresolved inconsistencies regarding foreign employment dates independently preclude approval.
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 finds the duties overly general and vague, with no detail as to daily activities, and notes that the unresolved inconsistencies regarding foreign employment dates independently preclude approval.
national interest served to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found that counsel's assertion that no identically effective teacher could be found through labor certification was unsupported by evidence, and that any objective qualifications required for the occupation can be articulated in a labor certification application. The petitioner's mere qualifications for the job do not warrant a waiver.
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 +
The AAO found that counsel's assertion that no identically effective teacher could be found through labor certification was unsupported by evidence, and that any objective qualifications required for the occupation can be articulated in a labor certification application. The petitioner's mere qualifications for the job do not warrant a waiver.