The petitioner's salary comparison to the Level 4 prevailing wage in a single Florida county is not an appropriate basis to establish 'high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.' The correct comparison must be to others at the top of the field, not to the majority of fully competent workers in a single locality.
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 salary comparison to the Level 4 prevailing wage in a single Florida county is not an appropriate basis to establish 'high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.' The correct comparison must be to others at the top of the field, not to the majority of fully competent workers in a single locality.
The submitted articles merely cited to the petitioner's work but were not 'about' the petitioner or his work as required by the regulation. Articles about others' work that briefly mention the petitioner do not qualify under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
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 merely cited to the petitioner's work but were not 'about' the petitioner or his work as required by the regulation. Articles about others' work that briefly mention the petitioner do not qualify under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
AAO withdrew the director's finding because the 'monitor' role was administrative rather than a judging capacity, and the after-the-fact statements about the contests lacked contemporaneous documentary evidence on letterhead and did not identify the artists judged.
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 withdrew the director's finding because the 'monitor' role was administrative rather than a judging capacity, and the after-the-fact statements about the contests lacked contemporaneous documentary evidence on letterhead and did not identify the artists judged.
AAO affirmed, finding the letters were vague, did not provide specific examples of impact on the field at large, and that benefiting individual clients or companies does not establish major significance in the field. AAO also declined to consider evidence post-dating the filing or first submitted on appeal.
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 +
AAO affirmed, finding the letters were vague, did not provide specific examples of impact on the field at large, and that benefiting individual clients or companies does not establish major significance in the field. AAO also declined to consider evidence post-dating the filing or first submitted on appeal.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO withdrew the director's finding, concluding the certificates reflected only local, regional, or institutional recognition; documentary inconsistencies with the sponsor's letter were unresolved; translations were uncertified; and self-promotional materials from the awarding association did not establish national or international recognition.
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 withdrew the director's finding, concluding the certificates reflected only local, regional, or institutional recognition; documentary inconsistencies with the sponsor's letter were unresolved; translations were uncertified; and self-promotional materials from the awarding association did not establish national or international recognition.
AAO affirmed, finding the articles were not about the beneficiary, lacked required translations, dates, or authors, and that no objective evidence established the publications as major media. AAO rejected the comparable evidence argument because the ten criteria readily applied to the beneficiary's occupation.
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 affirmed, finding the articles were not about the beneficiary, lacked required translations, dates, or authors, and that no objective evidence established the publications as major media. AAO rejected the comparable evidence argument because the ten criteria readily applied to the beneficiary's occupation.
final merits determination – degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered
证据为何得到认可
On the totality of the evidence, including a $500,000 annual salary, the AAO concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered and qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability.
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 +
On the totality of the evidence, including a $500,000 annual salary, the AAO concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered and qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability.