The petitioner's 2010 tax return showed deeply negative net income and net current assets, and the petitioner failed to show the beneficiary was paid the proffered wage or that Sonegawa factors justified an exception.
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 2010 tax return showed deeply negative net income and net current assets, and the petitioner failed to show the beneficiary was paid the proffered wage or that Sonegawa factors justified an exception.
specificity requirement for appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Petitioner's only statement was a request for more time and a promise to file a brief within 30 days, which never arrived. This does not identify specific errors in the director's decision.
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 +
Petitioner's only statement was a request for more time and a promise to file a brief within 30 days, which never arrived. This does not identify specific errors in the director's decision.
The labor certification required 5 years of experience as a director of social services, but the submitted employment letters described the beneficiary's experience as a social worker/case manager and coordinator of respite and in-household social services — not as a director of social services.
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 5 years of experience as a director of social services, but the submitted employment letters described the beneficiary's experience as a social worker/case manager and coordinator of respite and in-household social services — not as a director of social services.
The petitioner paid only $26,880 in wages to the beneficiary in 2009 and 2010 against a proffered wage of $91,000, reported a net loss of -$330,045 for 2009, and failed to provide 2010 and 2011 tax returns despite an RFE. The totality of circumstances did not establish ability to pay paralleling Matter of Sonegawa.
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 paid only $26,880 in wages to the beneficiary in 2009 and 2010 against a proffered wage of $91,000, reported a net loss of -$330,045 for 2009, and failed to provide 2010 and 2011 tax returns despite an RFE. The totality of circumstances did not establish ability to pay paralleling Matter of Sonegawa.
Net income was -$115,562 in 2009 and -$163,869 in 2010. Reliance on gross receipts or gross income is misplaced. Unaudited financial statements were not persuasive because they were compiled rather than audited.
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 income was -$115,562 in 2009 and -$163,869 in 2010. Reliance on gross receipts or gross income is misplaced. Unaudited financial statements were not persuasive because they were compiled rather than audited.
Beneficiary was paid $60,000.03 in 2009 and $126,666.67 in 2010, both well below the proffered wage. Even on a prorated basis for the portion of 2009 after the priority date, Texas quarterly payroll records showed the beneficiary was paid substantially less than the prorated proffered wage.
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 +
Beneficiary was paid $60,000.03 in 2009 and $126,666.67 in 2010, both well below the proffered wage. Even on a prorated basis for the portion of 2009 after the priority date, Texas quarterly payroll records showed the beneficiary was paid substantially less than the prorated proffered wage.
Net current assets were -$315,243 in 2009 and -$500,967 in 2010. Bank statements are not among the enumerated evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot show sustainable ability to pay, nor did the petitioner demonstrate why the specified documentation was inapplicable.
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 -$315,243 in 2009 and -$500,967 in 2010. Bank statements are not among the enumerated evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot show sustainable ability to pay, nor did the petitioner demonstrate why the specified documentation was inapplicable.
The AAO raised this issue sua sponte beyond the director's decision. The beneficiary's experience with one employer was as an engineering manager (not substantially similar), while the other employer's letter covered only 2 years 9 months and lacked duty descriptions.…
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 this issue sua sponte beyond the director's decision. The beneficiary's experience with one employer was as an engineering manager (not substantially similar), while the other employer's letter covered only 2 years 9 months and lacked duty descriptions. Experience with the petitioner itself was disqualified because it was substantially comparable to the proffered position and alternate occupation experience was not permitted by the labor certification.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO held that criterion (vii) is generally limited to the visual arts. Dancesport constitutes an athletic display rather than an artistic one involving tangible pieces of art displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, so the criterion does not apply.
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 held that criterion (vii) is generally limited to the visual arts. Dancesport constitutes an athletic display rather than an artistic one involving tangible pieces of art displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, so the criterion does not apply.
The AAO withdrew the director's favorable determination, finding that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that any of the prizes or awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The USDC certificate only identified the petitioner as a finalist without specifying his final position, and neither certificate was shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.
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 favorable determination, finding that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that any of the prizes or awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The USDC certificate only identified the petitioner as a finalist without specifying his final position, and neither certificate was shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.