beneficiary meets master's degree requirement on ETA Form 9089
证据为何得到认可
With the DESS transcript submitted on appeal and EDGE information, the AAO found the DESS more likely than not comparable to a U.S. master's degree, satisfying the labor certification requirement.
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 +
With the DESS transcript submitted on appeal and EDGE information, the AAO found the DESS more likely than not comparable to a U.S. master's degree, satisfying the labor certification requirement.
AAO relied on AACRAO EDGE data showing that a three-year Indian B.S. equals only 2–3 years of U.S. study and that an Indian MBA equals only a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted private credential evaluation was found unpersuasive because it lacked substantiation for its credit-hour assignments and was not peer-reviewed. The beneficiary's total education therefore equates to a U.S.…
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 relied on AACRAO EDGE data showing that a three-year Indian B.S. equals only 2–3 years of U.S. study and that an Indian MBA equals only a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted private credential evaluation was found unpersuasive because it lacked substantiation for its credit-hour assignments and was not peer-reviewed. The beneficiary's total education therefore equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which falls short of the master's degree required by the labor certification.
The AAO had previously found the membership evidence insufficient and, on motion, found the petitioner did not demonstrate the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
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 had previously found the membership evidence insufficient and, on motion, found the petitioner did not demonstrate the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
The AAO had previously found the published materials insufficient and, on motion, found the petitioner did not demonstrate the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
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 had previously found the published materials insufficient and, on motion, found the petitioner did not demonstrate the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or foreign equivalent
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO preferred the peer-reviewed EDGE database, which equates a three-year Indian B.Sc. to two-three years of U.S. study and an Indian MBA to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted evaluation was unpersuasive because its credit assignments were unsubstantiated and not peer-reviewed.
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 preferred the peer-reviewed EDGE database, which equates a three-year Indian B.Sc. to two-three years of U.S. study and an Indian MBA to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The submitted evaluation was unpersuasive because its credit assignments were unsubstantiated and not peer-reviewed.
AAO identified independently on appeal that the beneficiary's degree is in applied physics, not in computer information systems as required by the labor certification. A degree in the wrong field does not satisfy the requirement even if it is otherwise equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.
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 identified independently on appeal that the beneficiary's degree is in applied physics, not in computer information systems as required by the labor certification. A degree in the wrong field does not satisfy the requirement even if it is otherwise equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.
Five years of progressive experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found independently on appeal that the sole work experience letter in the record was deficient because it did not include the name or address of the author as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), and therefore the beneficiary failed to demonstrate five years of progressive experience by 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 +
AAO found independently on appeal that the sole work experience letter in the record was deficient because it did not include the name or address of the author as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), and therefore the beneficiary failed to demonstrate five years of progressive experience by the priority date.
The AAO had previously found the evidence insufficient and, on motion, found the petitioner merely disagreed with the finding without demonstrating an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
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 had previously found the evidence insufficient and, on motion, found the petitioner merely disagreed with the finding without demonstrating an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
The AAO found that the director's denial was improper because it relied on pre-priority-date evidence. The relevant financial documents for 2010 and 2011 were likely unavailable at the time of adjudication, so the matter must be remanded for the director to solicit and consider that 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 +
The AAO found that the director's denial was improper because it relied on pre-priority-date evidence. The relevant financial documents for 2010 and 2011 were likely unavailable at the time of adjudication, so the matter must be remanded for the director to solicit and consider that evidence.