Original scientific or scholarly research contributions of major significance (20 C.F.R. § 656.15(d)(1)(v))
AAO 为什么未被说服
Letters did not claim original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance, and vague solicited letters from local colleagues are insufficient.
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 +
Letters did not claim original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance, and vague solicited letters from local colleagues are insufficient.
Beneficiary meets minimum education on labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
EDGE information shows the Indian three-year B.S. plus M.S. is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The private evaluator failed to compare the credentials to a U.S. master's degree and did not rely on peer-reviewed materials, making it unpersuasive. The labor certification required a master's degree with no alternative combination permitted.
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 +
EDGE information shows the Indian three-year B.S. plus M.S. is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The private evaluator failed to compare the credentials to a U.S. master's degree and did not rely on peer-reviewed materials, making it unpersuasive. The labor certification required a master's degree with no alternative combination permitted.
Continuing ability to pay proffered wage from priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary was paid less than the proffered wage each year from 2008–2010. The Schedule C showed net losses each year, insufficient to cover the wage gap. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis did not help the petitioner because it showed no significant growth, outstanding reputation, or extraordinary circumstances explaining 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 beneficiary was paid less than the proffered wage each year from 2008–2010. The Schedule C showed net losses each year, insufficient to cover the wage gap. The Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis did not help the petitioner because it showed no significant growth, outstanding reputation, or extraordinary circumstances explaining the shortfall.
AAO found that the record contained conflicting information about the festival, the supporting letters were merely congratulatory without establishing national or international recognition, and even if the award qualified, the petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence of more than one nationally or internationally recognized prize or award as required by the plural language of the regulation.
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 record contained conflicting information about the festival, the supporting letters were merely congratulatory without establishing national or international recognition, and even if the award qualified, the petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence of more than one nationally or internationally recognized prize or award as required by the plural language of the regulation.
The letters praised the petitioner's work and affirmed the originality of her work, but did not establish that she had made original contributions of major significance in the field or demonstrate impact at a level consistent with such a contribution.
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 +
The letters praised the petitioner's work and affirmed the originality of her work, but did not establish that she had made original contributions of major significance in the field or demonstrate impact at a level consistent with such a contribution.
Considering all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the 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 +
Considering all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Awards lacked evidence of national/international recognition, judging was a single event in 2002, published material did not include major national publications, and exhibition evidence did not demonstrate a level of distinction setting her apart from others.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
Only four of ten articles were primarily about the petitioner. The newspaper cited was not printed in a predominant language in the United States. None of the articles included the author, and two lacked dates. All were foreign language documents lacking sufficient translator certifications.
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 +
Only four of ten articles were primarily about the petitioner. The newspaper cited was not printed in a predominant language in the United States. None of the articles included the author, and two lacked dates. All were foreign language documents lacking sufficient translator certifications.
original contributions of major significance in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
Letters were vague and failed to identify specific original contributions or their impact on the field. Claims of cultural contributions were unspecific and some were forward-looking. Foreign language documents lacked sufficient certifications. Awards and leading role evidence cannot be presumed to satisfy this separate criterion.
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 +
Letters were vague and failed to identify specific original contributions or their impact on the field. Claims of cultural contributions were unspecific and some were forward-looking. Foreign language documents lacked sufficient certifications. Awards and leading role evidence cannot be presumed to satisfy this separate criterion.
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
AAO 为什么未被说服
Concert programs did not establish a critical role or the distinguished reputation of the organizations. The supporting letter did not provide evidence of the organization's distinguished reputation. Counsel's historical assertions were not evidence. Even if one qualifying organization were shown, the regulation requires evidence of qualifying roles at organizations 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 +
Concert programs did not establish a critical role or the distinguished reputation of the organizations. The supporting letter did not provide evidence of the organization's distinguished reputation. Counsel's historical assertions were not evidence. Even if one qualifying organization were shown, the regulation requires evidence of qualifying roles at organizations in the plural.