leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO treated this claim as abandoned because the appellate brief was virtually identical to the RFE response and did not identify any error of law or fact. Regardless, the record lacked evidence of a leading or critical role, and the criterion requires evidence of roles for multiple organizations (plural), not just one.
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 treated this claim as abandoned because the appellate brief was virtually identical to the RFE response and did not identify any error of law or fact. Regardless, the record lacked evidence of a leading or critical role, and the criterion requires evidence of roles for multiple organizations (plural), not just one.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
None of the media reports are about the petitioner and his work in the field — most cover events in which he participated. The Chinese-language newspaper did not qualify as major media for independent reasons; the local New Jersey outlet's viewership was not established; and a newspaper article was about his high school, not him.…
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 +
None of the media reports are about the petitioner and his work in the field — most cover events in which he participated. The Chinese-language newspaper did not qualify as major media for independent reasons; the local New Jersey outlet's viewership was not established; and a newspaper article was about his high school, not him. Additionally, the material concerns his achievements as a competitor, not as a consultant or coach.
While the letter and other evidence established the petitioner served as a referee, the evidence did not enumerate his duties sufficiently to show he was judging the work of others (e.g., awarding points or choosing the winner) rather than merely enforcing rules. Additionally, several items showed only invitations to serve, not actual participation.
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 +
While the letter and other evidence established the petitioner served as a referee, the evidence did not enumerate his duties sufficiently to show he was judging the work of others (e.g., awarding points or choosing the winner) rather than merely enforcing rules. Additionally, several items showed only invitations to serve, not actual participation.
Counsel claimed original contributions in the initial filing but petitioner failed to respond to the director's RFE on this point and did not raise the claim again, so it was deemed abandoned.
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 +
Counsel claimed original contributions in the initial filing but petitioner failed to respond to the director's RFE on this point and did not raise the claim again, so it was deemed abandoned.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
Initial counsel asserted petitioner played a leading role for his team in national competitions but did not specifically address this criterion. On appeal, petitioner did not contest the director's finding or offer additional arguments, so the claim was deemed abandoned.
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 +
Initial counsel asserted petitioner played a leading role for his team in national competitions but did not specifically address this criterion. On appeal, petitioner did not contest the director's finding or offer additional arguments, so the claim was deemed abandoned.
The media coverage submitted (from a Chinese-language newspaper) relied on self-promotional publisher material, Wikipedia, and inadequately translated documents, and thus did not establish the national or international recognition of the awards. Additionally, the awards were for achievements as a competitor rather than as a consultant or coach.
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 media coverage submitted (from a Chinese-language newspaper) relied on self-promotional publisher material, Wikipedia, and inadequately translated documents, and thus did not establish the national or international recognition of the awards. Additionally, the awards were for achievements as a competitor rather than as a consultant or coach.
The AAO considered this claim abandoned because counsel failed to address this criterion on appeal, instead addressing only the significance of contributions. As with the membership criterion, the new evidence was not accepted because the petitioner failed to respond to the director's RFE.
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 considered this claim abandoned because counsel failed to address this criterion on appeal, instead addressing only the significance of contributions. As with the membership criterion, the new evidence was not accepted because the petitioner failed to respond to the director's RFE.
60 months of experience in the offered job of architect as of priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary's experience with the petitioner could not count (only 12 months and self-contradicted by J.21 answer); project manager experience at two companies totaled only ~28 months and was insufficiently described; prior Mexico-based company experience was not listed on the ETA Form 9089 at Part K and thus could not be credited; experience before receiving the architecture degree in 2003 could not qualify.…
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 beneficiary's experience with the petitioner could not count (only 12 months and self-contradicted by J.21 answer); project manager experience at two companies totaled only ~28 months and was insufficiently described; prior Mexico-based company experience was not listed on the ETA Form 9089 at Part K and thus could not be credited; experience before receiving the architecture degree in 2003 could not qualify. None of the additional evidence submitted in response to the NOID/RFE cured these deficiencies.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
裁决如何说明
The petitioner never asserted this criterion before the director — prior counsel presented the membership only as evidence of intent to continue working in the field. Because petitioners must raise criteria before the director and may not raise new eligibility claims for the first time on appeal, AAO declined to consider this criterion.
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 never asserted this criterion before the director — prior counsel presented the membership only as evidence of intent to continue working in the field. Because petitioners must raise criteria before the director and may not raise new eligibility claims for the first time on appeal, AAO declined to consider this criterion.
The petitioner branched out into the coffee business in 2009, opened six coffee shops in three years, and its primary or exclusive line of business appears to be coffee shops. Site visits confirmed the Pasadena architectural address was occupied by another company. None of the submitted architectural proposals were signed and there was no evidence the petitioner derived income or work from them.
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 branched out into the coffee business in 2009, opened six coffee shops in three years, and its primary or exclusive line of business appears to be coffee shops. Site visits confirmed the Pasadena architectural address was occupied by another company. None of the submitted architectural proposals were signed and there was no evidence the petitioner derived income or work from them.