The articles were primarily about others (a Filipino award nominee and a performing arts academy), not the petitioner. The news segment did not even mention the petitioner by name. The photographs lacked the required title, date, and author. The two articles about the petitioner were filed after the petition date and could not be used.…
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 articles were primarily about others (a Filipino award nominee and a performing arts academy), not the petitioner. The news segment did not even mention the petitioner by name. The photographs lacked the required title, date, and author. The two articles about the petitioner were filed after the petition date and could not be used. Even if one item qualified, the criterion requires evidence in 'professional or major trade publications or other major media' in the plural.
Wikipedia evidence was unreliable. Magazine publications were considered under the separate published material criterion and do not presumptively satisfy this criterion. Reference letters showed impact on individual projects or departments, not on the field as a whole. The letters lacked specificity and were not corroborated. Merely applying make-up to celebrities does not constitute a contribution of major significance.
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 +
Wikipedia evidence was unreliable. Magazine publications were considered under the separate published material criterion and do not presumptively satisfy this criterion. Reference letters showed impact on individual projects or departments, not on the field as a whole. The letters lacked specificity and were not corroborated. Merely applying make-up to celebrities does not constitute a contribution of major significance.
The evidence showed only that the petitioner was asked and agreed to judge, not that she actually participated as a judge. The plain language requires evidence of actual participation.
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 evidence showed only that the petitioner was asked and agreed to judge, not that she actually participated as a judge. The plain language requires evidence of actual participation.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
None of the ten submitted items fully satisfied the criterion. Most lacked the required title, date, and/or author; were not about the petitioner relating to her work; or failed to establish that the publication qualified as a professional or major trade publication or other major media.
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 +
None of the ten submitted items fully satisfied the criterion. Most lacked the required title, date, and/or author; were not about the petitioner relating to her work; or failed to establish that the publication qualified as a professional or major trade publication or other major media.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
Only one award was shown to be nationally recognized, but the regulation requires more than one qualifying prize or award (plural). The other award lacked documentary evidence of national or international 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 +
Only one award was shown to be nationally recognized, but the regulation requires more than one qualifying prize or award (plural). The other award lacked documentary evidence of national or international recognition.
high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner failed to submit primary evidence of her salary, and the supporting letter did not qualify as an affidavit. Furthermore, the comparative salary data was drawn from general chief executives rather than chief executives in the tourism or car rental field, so the petitioner failed to show a high salary in relation to others in her specific field.
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 failed to submit primary evidence of her salary, and the supporting letter did not qualify as an affidavit. Furthermore, the comparative salary data was drawn from general chief executives rather than chief executives in the tourism or car rental field, so the petitioner failed to show a high salary in relation to others in her specific field.
AAO found that a three-year foreign bachelor's degree does not constitute a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate under Matter of Shah. The combination of the three-year degree and a polytechnic diploma does not equal a single foreign equivalent 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 found that a three-year foreign bachelor's degree does not constitute a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate under Matter of Shah. The combination of the three-year degree and a polytechnic diploma does not equal a single foreign equivalent degree. The credential evaluations were given less weight because they were inconsistent with EDGE database information showing that a diploma in engineering is comparable to only up to one year of U.S. university study and that three-year B.S. programs in India are equivalent to only two to three years of U.S. study.
The AAO agreed with EDGE's assessment that the Diplome d'Ingenieur is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The Master degree equivalency in EDGE refers to the university-based L-M-D degree structure, not to the Grande Ecole credential. The U.S. five-year BS/MS programs integrate two separate degrees while the Diplome d'Ingenieur is a single 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 +
The AAO agreed with EDGE's assessment that the Diplome d'Ingenieur is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The Master degree equivalency in EDGE refers to the university-based L-M-D degree structure, not to the Grande Ecole credential. The U.S. five-year BS/MS programs integrate two separate degrees while the Diplome d'Ingenieur is a single degree. The submitted credential evaluations were discounted because they equated a first-degree professional credential in France to a second-degree credential in the U.S. without adequate explanation.
Only one pre-denial letter evidenced any membership, failing the regulatory requirement for plural 'professional associations.' Moreover, the petitioner did not show that the organization in question qualifies as a 'professional association' because the beneficiary's occupation is not listed in INA § 101(a)(32) and no bachelor's degree requirement was shown. New membership letters submitted on appeal were untimely.
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 +
Only one pre-denial letter evidenced any membership, failing the regulatory requirement for plural 'professional associations.' Moreover, the petitioner did not show that the organization in question qualifies as a 'professional association' because the beneficiary's occupation is not listed in INA § 101(a)(32) and no bachelor's degree requirement was shown. New membership letters submitted on appeal were untimely.
salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
The new salary evidence was submitted for the first time on appeal after the director's RFE specifically requested compensation evidence. The 2009 tax return showed no salaries paid. The CPA letter's assertion of current compensation does not establish compensation at the time of filing, and the claimed amount does not demonstrate exceptional ability in any event.…
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 new salary evidence was submitted for the first time on appeal after the director's RFE specifically requested compensation evidence. The 2009 tax return showed no salaries paid. The CPA letter's assertion of current compensation does not establish compensation at the time of filing, and the claimed amount does not demonstrate exceptional ability in any event. Evidence withheld until appeal cannot cure the failure to respond to the RFE.