beneficiary's qualifying experience per labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that experience not listed on the certified ETA Form 9089 cannot be credited, citing Matter of Leung and Matter of Ho, and rejected counsel's unsupported transmission-error explanation.
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 agreed that experience not listed on the certified ETA Form 9089 cannot be credited, citing Matter of Leung and Matter of Ho, and rejected counsel's unsupported transmission-error explanation.
ETA Form 9089 minimum requirements support EB-2 advanced degree classification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO raised this issue sua sponte beyond the director's decision, finding that the alternative 'any combination of education which equates to a bachelor's degree' permits qualification with less than a bachelor's degree and therefore the labor certification does not require an advanced degree professional.
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 issue sua sponte beyond the director's decision, finding that the alternative 'any combination of education which equates to a bachelor's degree' permits qualification with less than a bachelor's degree and therefore the labor certification does not require an advanced degree professional.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
The submitted articles either were not about the petitioner, lacked required author/date information, lacked full English translations, or lacked evidence of being published in major media.…
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 submitted articles either were not about the petitioner, lacked required author/date information, lacked full English translations, or lacked evidence of being published in major media. The comparable evidence argument failed because counsel's own submissions contradicted the claim that the criterion doesn't apply to jockeys, and mere mention in an article is not comparable to published material about the alien in major media.
The petitioner's field is not the performing arts, and the race earnings information did not specify the petitioner's actual individual share. The submitted documentation was not comparable to the regulation's requirement of box office receipts or record/cassette/CD/video sales.
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 field is not the performing arts, and the race earnings information did not specify the petitioner's actual individual share. The submitted documentation was not comparable to the regulation's requirement of box office receipts or record/cassette/CD/video sales.
high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The race earnings statistics did not specify the petitioner's individual share of the winnings. Mean wage data for the broad 'Athletes and Sports Competitors' category is not a proper comparison to others in the petitioner's specific field. The petitioner needed evidence of actual remuneration compared to top-level jockeys, not an average across a large occupational group.
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 race earnings statistics did not specify the petitioner's individual share of the winnings. Mean wage data for the broad 'Athletes and Sports Competitors' category is not a proper comparison to others in the petitioner's specific field. The petitioner needed evidence of actual remuneration compared to top-level jockeys, not an average across a large occupational group.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
None of the submitted documents identified nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The 'Leading Jockey' trophies lacked evidence of recognition beyond the local racetracks presenting them, and expert letters merely repeated statutory language without identifying qualifying awards.
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 +
None of the submitted documents identified nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The 'Leading Jockey' trophies lacked evidence of recognition beyond the local racetracks presenting them, and expert letters merely repeated statutory language without identifying qualifying awards.
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputation
AAO 为什么未被说服
The three trainer letters used duplicative language making them of limited probative value, and none stated the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role. Being 'Leading Jockey' at two race seasons and ranking seventh at one track for three months does not constitute a leading or critical role for an organization as a whole. Wikipedia evidence was given no weight. The comparable evidence argument also failed.
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 three trainer letters used duplicative language making them of limited probative value, and none stated the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role. Being 'Leading Jockey' at two race seasons and ranking seventh at one track for three months does not constitute a leading or critical role for an organization as a whole. Wikipedia evidence was given no weight. The comparable evidence argument also failed.
high salary or other significantly high remuneration
AAO 为什么未被说服
This criterion was abandoned on the prior appeal and may not be raised on motion. Moreover, the only comparative salary evidence consists of improperly translated foreign-language documents with no evidentiary value.
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 +
This criterion was abandoned on the prior appeal and may not be raised on motion. Moreover, the only comparative salary evidence consists of improperly translated foreign-language documents with no evidentiary value.
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The resubmitted documents do not establish that excellence in medicine was a criterion for the 2004 award, and the identity/expertise of the 'Board of Judges' remains unestablished. The 2010 certificate evidence is self-promotional and lacks independent corroboration.
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 resubmitted documents do not establish that excellence in medicine was a criterion for the 2004 award, and the identity/expertise of the 'Board of Judges' remains unestablished. The 2010 certificate evidence is self-promotional and lacks independent corroboration.