The economic and employment data the Petitioner submitted pertained to the employer company as a whole, not to the Beneficiary's specific role. The importance of the profession or industry does not substitute for showing the specific prospective impact of the Beneficiary's own proposed endeavor.…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The economic and employment data the Petitioner submitted pertained to the employer company as a whole, not to the Beneficiary's specific role. The importance of the profession or industry does not substitute for showing the specific prospective impact of the Beneficiary's own proposed endeavor. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's work as a project controls engineer advances STEM technologies, has broader implications in the field, or has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or provide substantial economic benefits.
AAO concluded that the Petitioner's evidence emphasized her personal expertise and the importance of the field, but did not show broader implications of her specific endeavor. Revenue and employment projections were unsupported, and operation in HUBZones was not shown to produce substantial positive economic effects of national importance. Expert and recommendation letters lacked probative value on prospective impact.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO concluded that the Petitioner's evidence emphasized her personal expertise and the importance of the field, but did not show broader implications of her specific endeavor. Revenue and employment projections were unsupported, and operation in HUBZones was not shown to produce substantial positive economic effects of national importance. Expert and recommendation letters lacked probative value on prospective impact.
AAO found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his specific consulting work for prospective clients would broadly impact U.S. interests at a national level, and that the record lacked probative evidence of the company's realistic potential to generate revenue, create jobs, or expand. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience was deemed relevant to prong two, not prong one.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his specific consulting work for prospective clients would broadly impact U.S. interests at a national level, and that the record lacked probative evidence of the company's realistic potential to generate revenue, create jobs, or expand. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience was deemed relevant to prong two, not prong one.
judging the work of others in the same or allied field
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that unlike many other athletic referees, Brazilian jiu-jitsu referees exercise discretion and subjective judgment in determining points and match outcomes, satisfying the judging criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's contrary conclusion.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that unlike many other athletic referees, Brazilian jiu-jitsu referees exercise discretion and subjective judgment in determining points and match outcomes, satisfying the judging criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's contrary conclusion.