The AAO found that documentary evidence failed to show national implementation of the petitioner's programs. Witnesses' claims of national impact were conflicting, uncorroborated, and not based on direct knowledge. Seedco's own website identified the relevant programs as New York City initiatives and referenced only potential future national expansion.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The AAO found that documentary evidence failed to show national implementation of the petitioner's programs. Witnesses' claims of national impact were conflicting, uncorroborated, and not based on direct knowledge. Seedco's own website identified the relevant programs as New York City initiatives and referenced only potential future national expansion.
AAO held that accreditation by a regional accrediting agency recognized by DoEd and CHEA is implicitly required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), because the INA applies nationwide and only degrees from nationally recognized institutions qualify. California's BPPE approval is merely a lower-level endorsement of minimum operating standards and does not confer nationwide recognition.…
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 accreditation by a regional accrediting agency recognized by DoEd and CHEA is implicitly required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), because the INA applies nationwide and only degrees from nationally recognized institutions qualify. California's BPPE approval is merely a lower-level endorsement of minimum operating standards and does not confer nationwide recognition. SEVP authorization does not address educational quality. Federal case law (Tang v. INS) supports denying classification based on a degree from an unaccredited California institution.
AAO agreed with the Director that accreditation by a DoEd/CHEA-recognized regional accrediting agency is implicit in the definition of 'advanced degree' under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), because the regulation's repeated reference to 'United States' degrees presupposes nationwide recognition, which only accreditation can assure. The beneficiary's institution was never accredited in the 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 agreed with the Director that accreditation by a DoEd/CHEA-recognized regional accrediting agency is implicit in the definition of 'advanced degree' under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), because the regulation's repeated reference to 'United States' degrees presupposes nationwide recognition, which only accreditation can assure. The beneficiary's institution was never accredited in the U.S. or abroad, so the MBA-F does not qualify.
MBA from unaccredited institution as advanced degree
AAO 为什么未被说服
An advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) implicitly requires accreditation by a regionally recognized accrediting agency. The institution is not accredited by WASC (the applicable regional accreditor for California), and state approval to operate is a lesser standard that does not confer nationwide recognition on degrees. Therefore the MBA does not qualify.
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 +
An advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) implicitly requires accreditation by a regionally recognized accrediting agency. The institution is not accredited by WASC (the applicable regional accreditor for California), and state approval to operate is a lesser standard that does not confer nationwide recognition on degrees. Therefore the MBA does not qualify.
Bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience as master's equivalent
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary's bachelor's degree is in engineering, not business administration, and there is no evidence of five years of progressive experience in engineering. Even if treated as a business degree, the documentation (W-2 forms without duty descriptions, a deficient employer letter, and a self-serving affidavit lacking specifics) fails to establish five years of qualifying progressive experience in business.
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 beneficiary's bachelor's degree is in engineering, not business administration, and there is no evidence of five years of progressive experience in engineering. Even if treated as a business degree, the documentation (W-2 forms without duty descriptions, a deficient employer letter, and a self-serving affidavit lacking specifics) fails to establish five years of qualifying progressive experience in business.
Beneficiary meets minimum education requirement on labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO relied on AACRAO EDGE information over the submitted evaluations, finding the evaluations unpersuasive because they failed to explain credit-hour calculations, acknowledged omissions of 'common elements' of U.S. degree programs, and lacked peer review. EDGE establishes that a three-year Indian bachelor's degree is comparable to two to three years of 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 information over the submitted evaluations, finding the evaluations unpersuasive because they failed to explain credit-hour calculations, acknowledged omissions of 'common elements' of U.S. degree programs, and lacked peer review. EDGE establishes that a three-year Indian bachelor's degree is comparable to two to three years of U.S. university study and the Indian Master of Science is comparable only to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Consequently the beneficiary's total education is equivalent to at most a U.S. bachelor's degree, short of the master's degree required by the labor certification.
This was a new argument raised for the first time on motion; raising a new legal argument not previously presented is not a proper basis for a motion to 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 +
This was a new argument raised for the first time on motion; raising a new legal argument not previously presented is not a proper basis for a motion to reconsider.
No new facts were presented; counsel simply resubmitted evidence already thoroughly discussed and analyzed in the prior AAO decision, failing to satisfy the 'new facts' requirement of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(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 +
No new facts were presented; counsel simply resubmitted evidence already thoroughly discussed and analyzed in the prior AAO decision, failing to satisfy the 'new facts' requirement of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).