display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
证据为何得到认可
The AAO affirmed the director's favorable finding that the petitioner presented evidence of the display of his compositions at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
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 affirmed the director's favorable finding that the petitioner presented evidence of the display of his compositions at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Motion to Reconsider — legal error in prior AAO decision
AAO 为什么未被说服
The motion to reconsider largely restated previously rejected arguments, raised the salary criterion for the first time (having been abandoned on appeal), and failed to identify new law or a de novo legal error in the prior AAO decision. The AAO found no error in applying Matter of Katigbak to require eligibility as of the filing date.
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 motion to reconsider largely restated previously rejected arguments, raised the salary criterion for the first time (having been abandoned on appeal), and failed to identify new law or a de novo legal error in the prior AAO decision. The AAO found no error in applying Matter of Katigbak to require eligibility as of the filing date.
Motion to Reopen — new facts not previously available
AAO 为什么未被说服
Virtually all evidence had been previously submitted and rejected. The single new 2012 article added nothing because the record already contained evidence about the same athlete. The petitioner's health issues in 2002–2008 had no bearing on his ability to submit evidence at the time of the 2009 appeal.
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 +
Virtually all evidence had been previously submitted and rejected. The single new 2012 article added nothing because the record already contained evidence about the same athlete. The petitioner's health issues in 2002–2008 had no bearing on his ability to submit evidence at the time of the 2009 appeal.
AAO found that the certified ETA Form 9089 unambiguously requires only a bachelor's degree and 18 months of experience. The replacement form lacked DOL certification and had signature dates predating the certified form, making the typographical error claim untenable. Job advertisements were not new evidence.
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 certified ETA Form 9089 unambiguously requires only a bachelor's degree and 18 months of experience. The replacement form lacked DOL certification and had signature dates predating the certified form, making the typographical error claim untenable. Job advertisements were not new evidence.
advanced degree or equivalent (bachelor's plus 5 years progressive experience)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO accepted that the beneficiary holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree but found he lacks the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because none was listed on the certified 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 accepted that the beneficiary holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree but found he lacks the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because none was listed on the certified labor certification.
Ability to pay via overall magnitude of business activities (Sonegawa totality)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the petitioner, while in business since 1993, presented no evidence of significant growth, outstanding business reputation, or uncharacteristic expenditures. The presence of 22 simultaneously pending immigrant petitions in light of its modest business size further undermined the realism of the job offer.
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 the petitioner, while in business since 1993, presented no evidence of significant growth, outstanding business reputation, or uncharacteristic expenditures. The presence of 22 simultaneously pending immigrant petitions in light of its modest business size further undermined the realism of the job offer.
Ability to pay via wages actually paid to beneficiary
AAO 为什么未被说服
The only W-2 submitted showed the beneficiary was paid $61,078.69 in 2010, far below the proffered wage, so prima facie ability to pay could not be established through wages paid.
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 only W-2 submitted showed the beneficiary was paid $61,078.69 in 2010, far below the proffered wage, so prima facie ability to pay could not be established through wages paid.
The petitioner's net current assets as shown on tax return Schedule L were $79,877 in 2009 and $34,142 in 2010, both well below the proffered wage of $96,013.
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 net current assets as shown on tax return Schedule L were $79,877 in 2009 and $34,142 in 2010, both well below the proffered wage of $96,013.
While the petitioner's net income initially appeared sufficient to pay this single beneficiary, 22 simultaneously pending I-140 petitions created a combined proffered wage shortfall of $626,972, far exceeding the petitioner's net income in both relevant years.
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 +
While the petitioner's net income initially appeared sufficient to pay this single beneficiary, 22 simultaneously pending I-140 petitions created a combined proffered wage shortfall of $626,972, far exceeding the petitioner's net income in both relevant years.