AAO withdrew the director's experience finding, holding that the 5-year experience listed in question 8-C is part of an alternative combination of education and experience and is not supplemental to the 3-year requirement in question 6.
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 experience finding, holding that the 5-year experience listed in question 8-C is part of an alternative combination of education and experience and is not supplemental to the 3-year requirement in question 6.
beneficiary's degree in major field listed on labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO held that USCIS must apply the plain language of the ETA Form 9089, which designated 'education' as the field of study and indicated that no alternate field was acceptable; the beneficiary's chemical engineering degree therefore does not satisfy the labor certification.
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 held that USCIS must apply the plain language of the ETA Form 9089, which designated 'education' as the field of study and indicated that no alternate field was acceptable; the beneficiary's chemical engineering degree therefore does not satisfy the labor certification.
Beneficiary possesses minimum education on ETA Form 9089 as of priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO affirmed that the beneficiary did not meet the labor certification's bachelor's degree requirement because a three-year Indian bachelor's degree is not a foreign equivalent degree.
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 affirmed that the beneficiary did not meet the labor certification's bachelor's degree requirement because a three-year Indian bachelor's degree is not a foreign equivalent degree.
The petitioner's 2010 Form 1120S showed net income of $18,794 and net current assets of $7,131, both well below the proffered wage of $114,296. Bank statements were rejected as insufficient because they are not enumerated evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), cannot demonstrate sustainable ability to pay, and the petitioner did not show the funds reflected amounts beyond those already captured in the tax return.…
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 2010 Form 1120S showed net income of $18,794 and net current assets of $7,131, both well below the proffered wage of $114,296. Bank statements were rejected as insufficient because they are not enumerated evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), cannot demonstrate sustainable ability to pay, and the petitioner did not show the funds reflected amounts beyond those already captured in the tax return. The totality of circumstances, including multiple pending petitions, further undermined the petitioner's showing.
The AAO found the totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is at the very top of the business field, relying on published descriptions of the petitioner as a 'legend' and 'godfather of Chinese flooring,' his entrepreneurial achievements, and his leadership of a college.
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 totality of evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner is at the very top of the business field, relying on published descriptions of the petitioner as a 'legend' and 'godfather of Chinese flooring,' his entrepreneurial achievements, and his leadership of a college.