AAO considered the totality of circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa but found no paralleling facts sufficient to establish ability to pay. The petitioner did not submit evidence of business reputation, uncharacteristic expenditures or losses, or that the beneficiary was replacing a former employee.
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 considered the totality of circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa but found no paralleling facts sufficient to establish ability to pay. The petitioner did not submit evidence of business reputation, uncharacteristic expenditures or losses, or that the beneficiary was replacing a former employee.
Net current assets sufficient to pay proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
Net current assets were -$274,918 in 2009 and -$405,743 in 2010. The petitioner's claim that liabilities were misleading was rejected because no supporting documentary evidence was provided to demonstrate that the listed liabilities had already been accounted for.
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 +
Net current assets were -$274,918 in 2009 and -$405,743 in 2010. The petitioner's claim that liabilities were misleading was rejected because no supporting documentary evidence was provided to demonstrate that the listed liabilities had already been accounted for.
beneficiary possessed minimum education stated on labor certification as of priority date
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the credentials evaluations unpersuasive because they reach contradictory conclusions and rely on unsubstantiated credit assignments. AAO preferred the EDGE database, which deems an Indian three-year B.Com comparable to only two to three years of U.S. university study, and found no evidence the NIIT PGD was an AICTE-approved post-bachelor program.
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 credentials evaluations unpersuasive because they reach contradictory conclusions and rely on unsubstantiated credit assignments. AAO preferred the EDGE database, which deems an Indian three-year B.Com comparable to only two to three years of U.S. university study, and found no evidence the NIIT PGD was an AICTE-approved post-bachelor program.
60 months of qualifying experience as market research analyst
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the experience letters insufficient because they did not show the beneficiary performed the specific job duties listed in Part H.11 of the ETA Form 9089.
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 experience letters insufficient because they did not show the beneficiary performed the specific job duties listed in Part H.11 of the ETA Form 9089.
AAO affirmed the Director's finding, noting that the petitioner offered no new facts, documentation, or legal argument on motion sufficient to overcome the prior determination.
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 the Director's finding, noting that the petitioner offered no new facts, documentation, or legal argument on motion sufficient to overcome the prior determination.
The AAO withdrew the director's approval, finding that the only comparative evidence was a single unsworn, unsourced letter comparing the petitioner's salary to the average Nepali actress rather than to top earners in the field, which was insufficient under the regulation's requirement to show high salary relative to others in the field.
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 withdrew the director's approval, finding that the only comparative evidence was a single unsworn, unsourced letter comparing the petitioner's salary to the average Nepali actress rather than to top earners in the field, which was insufficient under the regulation's requirement to show high salary relative to others in the field.
While the AAO noted that the director incorrectly stated no evidence was submitted, the AAO found that none of the submitted evidence constituted box office receipts or actual sales figures as required by the plain language of the regulation.
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 AAO noted that the director incorrectly stated no evidence was submitted, the AAO found that none of the submitted evidence constituted box office receipts or actual sales figures as required by the plain language of the regulation.
The AAO found that counsel failed to identify any specific error in the director's decision or any original contributions of major significance, essentially abandoning the claim on appeal by providing only a generalized, non-specific assertion.
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 +
The AAO found that counsel failed to identify any specific error in the director's decision or any original contributions of major significance, essentially abandoning the claim on appeal by providing only a generalized, non-specific assertion.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Kamana article lacked required author information, and the petitioner failed to submit independent evidence establishing Kamana as major media. The Kollywood article lacked required date and author, and no evidence was submitted establishing Kollywood as a qualifying publication. Broad references to other previously submitted materials without specific argument were insufficient.
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 Kamana article lacked required author information, and the petitioner failed to submit independent evidence establishing Kamana as major media. The Kollywood article lacked required date and author, and no evidence was submitted establishing Kollywood as a qualifying publication. Broad references to other previously submitted materials without specific argument were insufficient.