beneficiary meets education requirements stated on ETA Form 9089
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary's three-year B.Com. is not a foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, so he does not meet the labor certification's stated education requirement.
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's three-year B.Com. is not a foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, so he does not meet the labor certification's stated education requirement.
single foreign equivalent of U.S. baccalaureate degree
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO relied on EDGE and the petitioner's own evaluations indicating the three-year B.Com. equates to only two to three years of U.S. university study, not a full U.S. baccalaureate. The H-1B education-experience equivalence regulation does not apply to immigrant petitions.
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 relied on EDGE and the petitioner's own evaluations indicating the three-year B.Com. equates to only two to three years of U.S. university study, not a full U.S. baccalaureate. The H-1B education-experience equivalence regulation does not apply to immigrant petitions.
beneficiary meets minimum education stated on labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
The labor certification required a master's degree with no alternate combination permitted. EDGE (AACRAO) information indicated the Polish Dyplom/Title of Master is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted evaluations were not persuasive because they failed to compare the beneficiary's Polish education to a U.S.…
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 labor certification required a master's degree with no alternate combination permitted. EDGE (AACRAO) information indicated the Polish Dyplom/Title of Master is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted evaluations were not persuasive because they failed to compare the beneficiary's Polish education to a U.S. master's degree program, did not address actual courses of study, and were not peer-reviewed or based on peer-reviewed materials.
Beneficiary meets minimum education requirement on labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the submitted evaluation, at most, established that the beneficiary's education is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which falls short of the master's degree required by the labor certification. No alternate combination of education and experience was permitted by the employer on the labor certification form.
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 submitted evaluation, at most, established that the beneficiary's education is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which falls short of the master's degree required by the labor certification. No alternate combination of education and experience was permitted by the employer on the labor certification form.
Net current assets sufficient to cover proffered wage obligations across all sponsored beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
Although net current assets exceeded the single proffered wage, the petitioner failed to demonstrate it could pay all proffered wage amounts for all beneficiaries out of its net current assets in 2009 and 2010.
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 +
Although net current assets exceeded the single proffered wage, the petitioner failed to demonstrate it could pay all proffered wage amounts for all beneficiaries out of its net current assets in 2009 and 2010.
Net income sufficient to cover proffered wage obligations across all sponsored beneficiaries
AAO 为什么未被说服
Although the petitioner's net income exceeded the single proffered wage in each year, when the total wage obligations to over 150 sponsored beneficiaries are included, the petitioner's net income was insufficient to cover all obligations in 2009 and 2010. The AAO also noted discrepancies in the petitioner's own exhibits that suggested even larger deficits.
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 +
Although the petitioner's net income exceeded the single proffered wage in each year, when the total wage obligations to over 150 sponsored beneficiaries are included, the petitioner's net income was insufficient to cover all obligations in 2009 and 2010. The AAO also noted discrepancies in the petitioner's own exhibits that suggested even larger deficits.
Beneficiary meets qualifications specified on labor certification as of priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO raised the beneficiary qualifications issue sua sponte. Two employer letters lacked required job duty descriptions and full-time status. The experience with the petitioner itself could not be counted because the beneficiary was performing substantially comparable duties, which DOL regulations prohibit from being used as qualifying experience for the same position.
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 raised the beneficiary qualifications issue sua sponte. Two employer letters lacked required job duty descriptions and full-time status. The experience with the petitioner itself could not be counted because the beneficiary was performing substantially comparable duties, which DOL regulations prohibit from being used as qualifying experience for the same position.
Wages paid to beneficiary equal to or exceeding proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary was paid $78,254.36 in 2009, $81,837.32 in 2010, and $83,564.39 in 2011, all falling short of the proffered wage of $110,240.00 per year.
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 $78,254.36 in 2009, $81,837.32 in 2010, and $83,564.39 in 2011, all falling short of the proffered wage of $110,240.00 per year.
Five years of qualifying post-baccalaureate experience by priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the beneficiary to actually 'have' the degree before post-baccalaureate experience can be counted. The degree certificate itself shows conferral on December 27, 1999, and semester result certificates indicate that examination results were not even declared until December 1998, confirming no degree could have been awarded before then.…
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 the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the beneficiary to actually 'have' the degree before post-baccalaureate experience can be counted. The degree certificate itself shows conferral on December 27, 1999, and semester result certificates indicate that examination results were not even declared until December 1998, confirming no degree could have been awarded before then. Accordingly, the beneficiary had only 3 years and 11 months of qualifying experience.
The AAO concludes EDGE establishes that a two-year Indian M.S. following a three-year Indian B.S. is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and none of the petitioner's contrary authorities bind or persuade the AAO.
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 concludes EDGE establishes that a two-year Indian M.S. following a three-year Indian B.S. is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and none of the petitioner's contrary authorities bind or persuade the AAO.