AAO concluded the totality of the evidence, including the U.S. training camp invitation and federation letters describing him as an internationally recognized coach who innovated techniques, shows he is at the very top and has sustained acclaim.
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 concluded the totality of the evidence, including the U.S. training camp invitation and federation letters describing him as an internationally recognized coach who innovated techniques, shows he is at the very top and has sustained acclaim.
national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
证据为何得到认可
AAO found the director's denial was based on factual errors contradicted by the record. The 288-citation record, independent editorial comments praising the petitioner's work, and expert witness letters identifying specific field-wide impacts collectively established that the petitioner would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker.
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 the director's denial was based on factual errors contradicted by the record. The 288-citation record, independent editorial comments praising the petitioner's work, and expert witness letters identifying specific field-wide impacts collectively established that the petitioner would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker.
Five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed only post-2007 experience could be counted, totaling about 15 months. AAO further noted that required employer letters were missing for some employers and that experience gained with the petitioner could not be used because the position was substantially comparable.
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 only post-2007 experience could be counted, totaling about 15 months. AAO further noted that required employer letters were missing for some employers and that experience gained with the petitioner could not be used because the position was substantially comparable.
AAO found that wages actually paid to the six beneficiaries in 2012 were collectively $257,238.09 below the proffered wages of $528,000; net income of $38,220 and net current assets of $125,802 were each insufficient to cover this shortfall. AAO rejected prorating arguments because petitioner did not submit partial-year financial evidence.…
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 that wages actually paid to the six beneficiaries in 2012 were collectively $257,238.09 below the proffered wages of $528,000; net income of $38,220 and net current assets of $125,802 were each insufficient to cover this shortfall. AAO rejected prorating arguments because petitioner did not submit partial-year financial evidence. AAO also rejected combining net income and net current assets as duplicative, and found that even adding the $120,000 officer compensation would not cover the $257,238.09 deficiency.
The petitioner failed to show that her work as a special education teacher would provide a benefit national in scope. The NCLBA arguments and general claims about teacher shortages did not sufficiently establish national scope for this individual petitioner's contributions.
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 +
The petitioner failed to show that her work as a special education teacher would provide a benefit national in scope. The NCLBA arguments and general claims about teacher shortages did not sufficiently establish national scope for this individual petitioner's contributions.
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's credentials — a master's degree and full certification — were held by the majority of special education teachers, and thus did not distinguish her from available U.S. workers. The motion repeated assertions from the earlier appellate brief without new argument or evidence.
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 petitioner's credentials — a master's degree and full certification — were held by the majority of special education teachers, and thus did not distinguish her from available U.S. workers. The motion repeated assertions from the earlier appellate brief without new argument or evidence.