AAO found that the support letters lacked specificity about how the petitioner's accomplishments constituted original contributions of major significance in the field as a whole; assertions were largely conclusory or about contributions to individual companies rather than the field.…
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 +
AAO found that the support letters lacked specificity about how the petitioner's accomplishments constituted original contributions of major significance in the field as a whole; assertions were largely conclusory or about contributions to individual companies rather than the field. Even if the petitioner had shown influence on the use of shorter models, that would only be one contribution, while the regulation requires contributions in the plural.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that press and media coverage and runway/fashion show appearances are a display of a product the petitioner is presenting on behalf of others, not a display of the petitioner's own work. The comparable evidence provision was also unavailable to the petitioner.
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 press and media coverage and runway/fashion show appearances are a display of a product the petitioner is presenting on behalf of others, not a display of the petitioner's own work. The comparable evidence provision was also unavailable to the petitioner.
AAO found that the petitioner was not eligible to claim comparable evidence and that counsel failed to explain how appearing in high-profile campaigns is comparable evidence of the petitioner's personal commercial success as measured by box office receipts or record/disk/video sales.
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 the petitioner was not eligible to claim comparable evidence and that counsel failed to explain how appearing in high-profile campaigns is comparable evidence of the petitioner's personal commercial success as measured by box office receipts or record/disk/video sales.
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO disagreed with the director on de novo review, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his competition awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Counsel's unsupported assertions about the prestige of the competitions were insufficient, and no documentary evidence showed the field recognized these awards at the national or international level.
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 disagreed with the director on de novo review, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his competition awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Counsel's unsupported assertions about the prestige of the competitions were insufficient, and no documentary evidence showed the field recognized these awards at the national or international level.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The record lacked a copy of the membership certificate, so membership was not established. Even assuming membership, the record contained no evidence that the association requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Additionally, counsel's assertion about a second qualifying association (IWSD) was abandoned on appeal. The criterion requires associations in the plural.
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 lacked a copy of the membership certificate, so membership was not established. Even assuming membership, the record contained no evidence that the association requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Additionally, counsel's assertion about a second qualifying association (IWSD) was abandoned on appeal. The criterion requires associations in the plural.
AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding because all submitted comparison data was limited to a particular geographic area of California rather than the field as a whole, and salary.com data compared only to 'typical' compensation.
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 withdrew the director's favorable finding because all submitted comparison data was limited to a particular geographic area of California rather than the field as a whole, and salary.com data compared only to 'typical' compensation.
AAO conducted its own final merits review and concluded that the petitioner's minimal publication/citation record, pending patents, vague reference letters, and above-average local salary do not place him at the very top of the software engineering field.
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 conducted its own final merits review and concluded that the petitioner's minimal publication/citation record, pending patents, vague reference letters, and above-average local salary do not place him at the very top of the software engineering field.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the letters relied on by petitioner did not adequately establish that the letter writers were authorized to speak for the relevant companies, and that being critical to the success of ad campaigns does not satisfy the criterion. Evidence from a key company was not accompanied by documentation from someone in a position to represent that company.
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 the letters relied on by petitioner did not adequately establish that the letter writers were authorized to speak for the relevant companies, and that being critical to the success of ad campaigns does not satisfy the criterion. Evidence from a key company was not accompanied by documentation from someone in a position to represent that company.
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the threshold Step 1 requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
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 reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the threshold Step 1 requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.