Wages actually paid to beneficiary equal to or exceeding proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary received $66,000 in 2007, $81,000.06 in 2008, $23,333.36 in 2009, and $0 in 2010, all below the proffered wage of $85,000. Wages paid to other beneficiaries cannot establish ability to pay the proffered wage to this beneficiary.
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 received $66,000 in 2007, $81,000.06 in 2008, $23,333.36 in 2009, and $0 in 2010, all below the proffered wage of $85,000. Wages paid to other beneficiaries cannot establish ability to pay the proffered wage to this beneficiary.
Overall magnitude of business activities under Matter of Sonegawa
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner has been in business since 1994, but showed declining gross receipts every year since the priority date, no evidence of sound or outstanding business reputation, no evidence of historical growth or milestone achievements, and had other simultaneously pending petitions casting doubt on ability to pay.
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 has been in business since 1994, but showed declining gross receipts every year since the priority date, no evidence of sound or outstanding business reputation, no evidence of historical growth or milestone achievements, and had other simultaneously pending petitions casting doubt on ability to pay.
Net income sufficient to cover proffered wage shortfall
AAO 为什么未被说服
Net income was $124,750 (2007), $137,742 (2008), $72,596 (2009), and $56,734 (2010). While sufficient in some years given the wage shortfall, the petitioner had not established sufficient net income to pay the proffered wage for 2010, where it paid the beneficiary nothing and net income of $56,734 fell below the $85,000 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 +
Net income was $124,750 (2007), $137,742 (2008), $72,596 (2009), and $56,734 (2010). While sufficient in some years given the wage shortfall, the petitioner had not established sufficient net income to pay the proffered wage for 2010, where it paid the beneficiary nothing and net income of $56,734 fell below the $85,000 proffered wage.
The AAO found none of the awards qualified: they lacked evidence of nomination/selection process or number of candidates; supporting evidence came from award-issuing entities (self-promotional); awards to the petitioner's companies rather than the petitioner himself do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion; and online sources such as Wikipedia and Baidu were given minimal weight.
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 none of the awards qualified: they lacked evidence of nomination/selection process or number of candidates; supporting evidence came from award-issuing entities (self-promotional); awards to the petitioner's companies rather than the petitioner himself do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion; and online sources such as Wikipedia and Baidu were given minimal weight.
The AAO disagreed with the director and found the petitioner did not meet this criterion. There was insufficient information about the second book, the petitioner's own statements were inconsistent about whether there was one or two books, and the regulation requires scholarly articles in the plural, so even one qualifying publication would be insufficient.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The AAO disagreed with the director and found the petitioner did not meet this criterion. There was insufficient information about the second book, the petitioner's own statements were inconsistent about whether there was one or two books, and the regulation requires scholarly articles in the plural, so even one qualifying publication would be insufficient.
The AAO found the comparative article not sufficiently authoritative or specific to the grain industry, that its data was from 1998–2002 while the petitioner's salary was from 2009–2010, that the provincial salary index was geographically limited and not specific to grain, and that evidence of wages above average does not satisfy the requirement of showing a 'high' salary.
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 the comparative article not sufficiently authoritative or specific to the grain industry, that its data was from 1998–2002 while the petitioner's salary was from 2009–2010, that the provincial salary index was geographically limited and not specific to grain, and that evidence of wages above average does not satisfy the requirement of showing a 'high' salary.
The AAO found the evidence failed to establish that any organization requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Member counts were large (195 and 436,000 members), and the evidence showed only that the Conference of All China Representatives recommends membership, not that recognized experts judge 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 +
The AAO found the evidence failed to establish that any organization requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Member counts were large (195 and 436,000 members), and the evidence showed only that the Conference of All China Representatives recommends membership, not that recognized experts judge achievements.
The AAO found the supporting letters were conclusory and insufficient, the petitioner provided no evidence that companies outside his own used the machines, and no licensing contracts or trade journal coverage supported the claimed significance. The AAO also noted the regulation requires contributions in the plural, so even one qualifying contribution would be insufficient.
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 +
The AAO found the supporting letters were conclusory and insufficient, the petitioner provided no evidence that companies outside his own used the machines, and no licensing contracts or trade journal coverage supported the claimed significance. The AAO also noted the regulation requires contributions in the plural, so even one qualifying contribution would be insufficient.