The AAO affirmed the director's finding that this criterion was satisfied, noting not all submitted evidence was published material about the petitioner but enough was.
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 affirmed the director's finding that this criterion was satisfied, noting not all submitted evidence was published material about the petitioner but enough was.
beneficiary meets minimum education on labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO's database review did not equate the beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. master's degree, and petitioner failed to respond to the NOID with additional evidence.
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's database review did not equate the beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. master's degree, and petitioner failed to respond to the NOID with additional evidence.
Bona fide intent to employ / employer-employee relationship
证据为何得到认可
AAO found, based on the Employment Agreement, Teaching Services Agreement, and a verification letter, that the petitioner was the beneficiary's employer and had the requisite intent to employ. The Director's finding on this issue was withdrawn.
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, based on the Employment Agreement, Teaching Services Agreement, and a verification letter, that the petitioner was the beneficiary's employer and had the requisite intent to employ. The Director's finding on this issue was withdrawn.
AAO agreed that the newly submitted tax returns were deficient because they lacked dates and preparer signatures, so the financial information could not be relied upon. Additionally, the petitioner still accounted for only 78 of 102 other I-140 petitions, and the bank statements covered only a small portion of the required period and were not a primary form of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).
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 newly submitted tax returns were deficient because they lacked dates and preparer signatures, so the financial information could not be relied upon. Additionally, the petitioner still accounted for only 78 of 102 other I-140 petitions, and the bank statements covered only a small portion of the required period and were not a primary form of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).
AAO found the acceptance to a residency program does not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field, as selection was based on conceptual creativity and technical knowledge rather than excellence, there was no evidence of national/international recognition of the selection, and the regulation requires multiple qualifying prizes or 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 +
AAO found the acceptance to a residency program does not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field, as selection was based on conceptual creativity and technical knowledge rather than excellence, there was no evidence of national/international recognition of the selection, and the regulation requires multiple qualifying prizes or awards.