Beneficiary has required five years of progressive experience by priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO raised this issue sua sponte. Multiple employment letters were deficient: one had date discrepancies with the labor certification, one was not from the employing entity, and one lacked ending date, job duties description, and full-time status confirmation. The three creditable letters established less than five years of qualifying experience.
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 raised this issue sua sponte. Multiple employment letters were deficient: one had date discrepancies with the labor certification, one was not from the employing entity, and one lacked ending date, job duties description, and full-time status confirmation. The three creditable letters established less than five years of qualifying experience.
AAO found that H.14 of the labor certification expressly permits qualification through a combination of lesser degrees, meaning the position can be filled without a genuine baccalaureate or advanced degree equivalent, precluding EB-2 classification.
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 H.14 of the labor certification expressly permits qualification through a combination of lesser degrees, meaning the position can be filled without a genuine baccalaureate or advanced degree equivalent, precluding EB-2 classification.
Labor certification valid for area of intended employment / bona fide job offer
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's own prevailing wage determination responses checked 'no' to travel requirements and multiple worksites, contradicting later claims that the position required travel to various locations. Recruitment materials (except the internet advertisement) did not disclose travel requirements. The labor certification was therefore written for a position inconsistent with the one actually offered, and potential U.S.…
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's own prevailing wage determination responses checked 'no' to travel requirements and multiple worksites, contradicting later claims that the position required travel to various locations. Recruitment materials (except the internet advertisement) did not disclose travel requirements. The labor certification was therefore written for a position inconsistent with the one actually offered, and potential U.S. workers were not properly apprised of actual job conditions.
AAO issued a NOID/RFE noting the petitioner's status was not active in New Jersey. In response, the petitioner submitted only a Connecticut certificate of good standing, failing to demonstrate active status in New Jersey, the location of proposed 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 issued a NOID/RFE noting the petitioner's status was not active in New Jersey. In response, the petitioner submitted only a Connecticut certificate of good standing, failing to demonstrate active status in New Jersey, the location of proposed employment.
The petitioner's net income and net current assets in 2011 fell far short of the $478,035 difference between proffered and actual wages paid across 37 sponsored workers. No Sonegawa factors were established to excuse the shortfall.
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's net income and net current assets in 2011 fell far short of the $478,035 difference between proffered and actual wages paid across 37 sponsored workers. No Sonegawa factors were established to excuse the shortfall.
AAO finds the petitioner did not pay the beneficiary directly during 2004-June 2008, the petitioner's tax returns for those years did not show sufficient net income or net current assets, and evidence regarding affiliated/successor entities (Objectsoft Group, 3i Infotech) is incomplete for 2010 and 2011.…
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 petitioner did not pay the beneficiary directly during 2004-June 2008, the petitioner's tax returns for those years did not show sufficient net income or net current assets, and evidence regarding affiliated/successor entities (Objectsoft Group, 3i Infotech) is incomplete for 2010 and 2011. Sonegawa factors do not apply because the petitioner had been formed only four months before petitioning, had filed 172 petitions including 17 I-140s, and showed no special reputational circumstances.
After reviewing the 2012 W-2 and 2012 Form 1120S, AAO found the petitioner demonstrated sufficient ability to pay from the priority date of April 13, 2012 forward.
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 +
After reviewing the 2012 W-2 and 2012 Form 1120S, AAO found the petitioner demonstrated sufficient ability to pay from the priority date of April 13, 2012 forward.
The beneficiary's foreign bachelor's degree in physical therapy was found equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and combined with over five years of progressive experience, satisfies the master's degree equivalent standard under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
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 foreign bachelor's degree in physical therapy was found equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and combined with over five years of progressive experience, satisfies the master's degree equivalent standard under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
The employment letter submitted on motion lacked the number of hours worked per week and the employer's address, and did not establish the beneficiary's qualifications as of the November 7, 2010 priority 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 +
The employment letter submitted on motion lacked the number of hours worked per week and the employer's address, and did not establish the beneficiary's qualifications as of the November 7, 2010 priority date.
The petitioner's unaudited (reviewed) financial statements do not satisfy the regulatory requirement for audited financials; the petitioner did not submit tax returns or other evidence on motion and failed to address this issue entirely.
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's unaudited (reviewed) financial statements do not satisfy the regulatory requirement for audited financials; the petitioner did not submit tax returns or other evidence on motion and failed to address this issue entirely.