Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
Academy candidacy, OYL Selection Committee service, and ABA Day at the UN delegation participation all post-dated the filing date and could not be considered. Regardless, none of these equates to membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.…
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 +
Academy candidacy, OYL Selection Committee service, and ABA Day at the UN delegation participation all post-dated the filing date and could not be considered. Regardless, none of these equates to membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The comparable evidence argument also failed because the petitioner addressed more than half the criteria and did not explain why the standard criteria were inapplicable.
Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Member News announcement is not a scholarly article (not peer-reviewed, no references). The three scholarly articles post-dated the filing date and could not be considered. Additionally, the criterion requires authorship in the plural of publications, and the petitioner offered only one.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The Member News announcement is not a scholarly article (not peer-reviewed, no references). The three scholarly articles post-dated the filing date and could not be considered. Additionally, the criterion requires authorship in the plural of publications, and the petitioner offered only one.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
Foreign-language articles were accompanied by a deficient blanket translation and had no evidentiary value; English articles lacked circulation/distribution evidence; and self-serving claims of circulation in an editor's letter were not accepted.
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 +
Foreign-language articles were accompanied by a deficient blanket translation and had no evidentiary value; English articles lacked circulation/distribution evidence; and self-serving claims of circulation in an editor's letter were not accepted.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found the supporting letters were not primary evidence of national or international recognition, the petitioner did not establish significance of the publication, foreign-language documents had deficient blanket translations, and discrepancies regarding award dates were unresolved.
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 found the supporting letters were not primary evidence of national or international recognition, the petitioner did not establish significance of the publication, foreign-language documents had deficient blanket translations, and discrepancies regarding award dates were unresolved.
The petitioner's 2008 tax return showed negative net income and negative net current assets well below the $102,000 proffered wage, no wages were paid to the beneficiary in 2008, and the Sonegawa exception was not established.
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 2008 tax return showed negative net income and negative net current assets well below the $102,000 proffered wage, no wages were paid to the beneficiary in 2008, and the Sonegawa exception was not established.
The evaluator's conclusions lacked substantiation because the employment statements were internally inconsistent, contradicted the beneficiary's sworn ETA Form 9089 statements, and failed to show the required 60 months of experience designing and planning mechanical systems.
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 evaluator's conclusions lacked substantiation because the employment statements were internally inconsistent, contradicted the beneficiary's sworn ETA Form 9089 statements, and failed to show the required 60 months of experience designing and planning mechanical systems.
60 months experience in alternate occupations (Accountant, Financial Analyst, Auditor, or Financial Manager)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The reference letter for one employer described duties inconsistent with a finance manager or accounting supervisor and contained a conflicting employment start date. The reference letter for the second employer failed to provide a specific description of duties as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1).…
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 reference letter for one employer described duties inconsistent with a finance manager or accounting supervisor and contained a conflicting employment start date. The reference letter for the second employer failed to provide a specific description of duties as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). The third revised letter on appeal lacked letterhead, omitted explanation for the revised duty descriptions, and appeared designed to cure deficiencies after the fact, undermining its credibility.
60 months experience as Operations Research Analyst
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary's experience with the petitioner (about 7 months) was in the same position as the one offered, making it substantially comparable and therefore unusable as qualifying experience under DOL regulations. No other qualifying Operations Research Analyst experience was documented.
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 (about 7 months) was in the same position as the one offered, making it substantially comparable and therefore unusable as qualifying experience under DOL regulations. No other qualifying Operations Research Analyst experience was documented.
Statutory field eligibility (sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO raised this issue sua sponte and found that the practice of law is a profession under EB-2, not within the enumerated EB-1A fields, rendering the petitioner statutorily ineligible regardless of the evidentiary criteria analysis.
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 raised this issue sua sponte and found that the practice of law is a profession under EB-2, not within the enumerated EB-1A fields, rendering the petitioner statutorily ineligible regardless of the evidentiary criteria analysis.