Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience as required by labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
Pre-degree experience is ineligible; the lecturer letter lacked job duty descriptions; co-worker affidavits were not from supervisors and did not comply with the regulation; the senior software engineer letter omitted key details on duration and duties; and the Indian company letter lacked the writer's name and signature and the company was not shown to be separate from 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 +
Pre-degree experience is ineligible; the lecturer letter lacked job duty descriptions; co-worker affidavits were not from supervisors and did not comply with the regulation; the senior software engineer letter omitted key details on duration and duties; and the Indian company letter lacked the writer's name and signature and the company was not shown to be separate from the petitioner.
AAO found that corroborating financial documentation and the controller's letter, permissible under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) for employers with 100 or more workers, sufficiently established the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage.
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 corroborating financial documentation and the controller's letter, permissible under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) for employers with 100 or more workers, sufficiently established the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage.
The AAO concluded the petitioner offered no primary documentary evidence to support the publisher's self-promotional claims and failed to meet the plain language requirements.
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 AAO concluded the petitioner offered no primary documentary evidence to support the publisher's self-promotional claims and failed to meet the plain language requirements.
continuing to work in the area of expertise in the United States
证据为何得到认可
The AAO found the record contained sufficient letters and documents reflecting that the petitioner has continued and will continue to work in his field, satisfying the regulatory requirements.
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 record contained sufficient letters and documents reflecting that the petitioner has continued and will continue to work in his field, satisfying the regulatory requirements.
Beneficiary meets labor certification requirements as of priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO raised this ground sua sponte beyond the director's decision. The beneficiary lacked sufficient qualifying post-degree experience: pre-degree work was excluded, the second employer's letter was inconsistent with the labor certification, and the petitioner's own experience could not count as substantially comparable. The remaining experience fell short of 60 months.
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 ground sua sponte beyond the director's decision. The beneficiary lacked sufficient qualifying post-degree experience: pre-degree work was excluded, the second employer's letter was inconsistent with the labor certification, and the petitioner's own experience could not count as substantially comparable. The remaining experience fell short of 60 months.
The petitioner's overall circumstances did not rise to the level recognized in Sonegawa; there were no analogous facts showing business reputation, exceptional circumstances, or uncharacteristic losses that would support a favorable exercise of discretion.
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 overall circumstances did not rise to the level recognized in Sonegawa; there were no analogous facts showing business reputation, exceptional circumstances, or uncharacteristic losses that would support a favorable exercise of discretion.
Although net current assets in 2011 exceeded the proffered wage on their face, the petitioner failed to account for simultaneous obligations to multiple I-140 beneficiaries and did not submit information on all sponsored workers, so net current assets do not establish ability to pay in the context of multiple petitions.
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 +
Although net current assets in 2011 exceeded the proffered wage on their face, the petitioner failed to account for simultaneous obligations to multiple I-140 beneficiaries and did not submit information on all sponsored workers, so net current assets do not establish ability to pay in the context of multiple petitions.
The beneficiary received only $24,059 in 2011 and $25,586 in 2012, far below the $94,411 proffered wage, so wages paid do not establish ability to pay.
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 received only $24,059 in 2011 and $25,586 in 2012, far below the $94,411 proffered wage, so wages paid do not establish ability to pay.