The petitioner's employment began after the filing date and cannot be considered. Even if considered, she failed to demonstrate that her role was leading or critical and that her employer had a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, the regulation requires leading or critical roles for multiple organizations (plural), but the petitioner only claimed eligibility based on one employer.
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 employment began after the filing date and cannot be considered. Even if considered, she failed to demonstrate that her role was leading or critical and that her employer had a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, the regulation requires leading or critical roles for multiple organizations (plural), but the petitioner only claimed eligibility based on one employer.
This criterion was first raised on appeal. The petitioner provided only an uncorroborated letter asserting approximately 1,000 downloads per month and contracts with various entities, but failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual box office receipts or record/CD/video sales as required by the plain language of the criterion.
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 +
This criterion was first raised on appeal. The petitioner provided only an uncorroborated letter asserting approximately 1,000 downloads per month and contracts with various entities, but failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual box office receipts or record/CD/video sales as required by the plain language of the criterion.
The director found that judging elementary school children is not judging others in the same or allied field. The AAO agreed, noting that counsel provided only unsupported assertions and no explanation of how judging children in a single charter school constitutes judging peers in the field of music.
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 +
The director found that judging elementary school children is not judging others in the same or allied field. The AAO agreed, noting that counsel provided only unsupported assertions and no explanation of how judging children in a single charter school constitutes judging peers in the field of music.
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because the submitted articles were not primarily about the petitioner or did not relate to his work in the field, lacked evidence of qualifying publication type, and post-petition-date evidence was excluded. The 2007 Minneapolis Public Schools report merely listed the petitioner among hundreds of partners and did not constitute published material about him.
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 finding because the submitted articles were not primarily about the petitioner or did not relate to his work in the field, lacked evidence of qualifying publication type, and post-petition-date evidence was excluded. The 2007 Minneapolis Public Schools report merely listed the petitioner among hundreds of partners and did not constitute published material about him.
In all relevant years (2007–2011), the sole proprietor's adjusted gross income minus expenses was insufficient to cover the proffered wage. Real property was not considered because it is a long-term, non-liquid asset. Bank account balances were not sustained at sufficient levels after the priority date.…
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 +
In all relevant years (2007–2011), the sole proprietor's adjusted gross income minus expenses was insufficient to cover the proffered wage. Real property was not considered because it is a long-term, non-liquid asset. Bank account balances were not sustained at sufficient levels after the priority date. Under the Sonegawa totality-of-circumstances analysis, the newly established business showed no significant growth, no outstanding business reputation, and gross receipts never exceeded the proffered wage.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
证据为何得到认可
AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence satisfies the plain language requirements for display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
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 that the petitioner's evidence satisfies the plain language requirements for display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Counsel's appellate brief expressed only general disagreement and referred back to prior submissions without pointing to any specific error in the director's analysis; AAO treated this criterion as abandoned 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 +
Counsel's appellate brief expressed only general disagreement and referred back to prior submissions without pointing to any specific error in the director's analysis; AAO treated this criterion as abandoned on appeal.
Counsel's appellate brief expressed only general disagreement without pointing to specific error in the director's analysis; AAO treated this criterion as abandoned. Independently, evidence of a single film's commercial success does not satisfy the plural requirement of the regulation, and the box office gross was modest compared to major releases.
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 +
Counsel's appellate brief expressed only general disagreement without pointing to specific error in the director's analysis; AAO treated this criterion as abandoned. Independently, evidence of a single film's commercial success does not satisfy the plural requirement of the regulation, and the box office gross was modest compared to major releases.
AAO held that the ESPN article was not new evidence because the petitioner did not explain why it could not have been presented previously, and AAO reaffirmed that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility based on coaching achievements.
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 held that the ESPN article was not new evidence because the petitioner did not explain why it could not have been presented previously, and AAO reaffirmed that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility based on coaching achievements.
Because counsel did not address this criterion in the appellate brief, the claim was abandoned and could not be raised within a motion to reopen and reconsider.
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 +
Because counsel did not address this criterion in the appellate brief, the claim was abandoned and could not be raised within a motion to reopen and reconsider.