AACRAO EDGE indicates the Indian three-year B.S. is comparable to two to three years of U.S. university study, and the Indian M.S. is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree—not a U.S. master's degree. The credential evaluations were discounted as not in accord with EDGE. A three-year bachelor's degree is not a foreign equivalent degree 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 +
AACRAO EDGE indicates the Indian three-year B.S. is comparable to two to three years of U.S. university study, and the Indian M.S. is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree—not a U.S. master's degree. The credential evaluations were discounted as not in accord with EDGE. A three-year bachelor's degree is not a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate, and experience cannot substitute for the degree itself under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
The Form ETA 750 unambiguously requires six years of college, but the beneficiary attended only three years of undergraduate and two years of graduate study, for a total of five years. USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification.
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 Form ETA 750 unambiguously requires six years of college, but the beneficiary attended only three years of undergraduate and two years of graduate study, for a total of five years. USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification.
The work experience letters in the record cumulatively verify only nine years, seven months, and two days of qualifying employment, which falls short of the required ten years.
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 work experience letters in the record cumulatively verify only nine years, seven months, and two days of qualifying employment, which falls short of the required ten years.
national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's personal desire to remain in the United States and his claims about limited immigration options do not establish that a waiver is in the national interest. The petitioner failed to show he would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner's personal desire to remain in the United States and his claims about limited immigration options do not establish that a waiver is in the national interest. The petitioner failed to show he would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker.
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the internal awards were insufficient without background showing their significance beyond the employing company, the witness letters merely attested to professional competence without showing the beneficiary stands out from peers, and the petitioner failed to provide objective corroborative evidence of the importance of the beneficiary's projects relative to comparable efforts.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the internal awards were insufficient without background showing their significance beyond the employing company, the witness letters merely attested to professional competence without showing the beneficiary stands out from peers, and the petitioner failed to provide objective corroborative evidence of the importance of the beneficiary's projects relative to comparable efforts.
AAO disagreed with the director and found the beneficiary's work is not inherently local or limited in geographic scope, and that as a national corporation with more than 50,000 enterprise customers, the petitioner's product development efforts have national scope.
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 +
AAO disagreed with the director and found the beneficiary's work is not inherently local or limited in geographic scope, and that as a national corporation with more than 50,000 enterprise customers, the petitioner's product development efforts have national scope.
The petitioner's claims of widespread influence and extensive citation were unsupported; the Google Scholar printout showed only two citations, the IEEE journal cover page did not prove anyone discussed the petitioner's work, and witness letters contained bare assertions without specific, verifiable examples of innovations and their impact.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner's claims of widespread influence and extensive citation were unsupported; the Google Scholar printout showed only two citations, the IEEE journal cover page did not prove anyone discussed the petitioner's work, and witness letters contained bare assertions without specific, verifiable examples of innovations and their impact.
The petitioner's broad national-scope claims were based on the same exaggerated and unsupported assertions; when pressed, he retreated from claims such as 'extensive and groundbreaking contributions to genomic, proteomic and drug discovery technologies,' admitting these consisted only of compiling a literature review.
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 petitioner's broad national-scope claims were based on the same exaggerated and unsupported assertions; when pressed, he retreated from claims such as 'extensive and groundbreaking contributions to genomic, proteomic and drug discovery technologies,' admitting these consisted only of compiling a literature review.
national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found the petitioner's evidence insufficient. The citation record showed only two citations to one article. The journal cover page submitted as evidence of widespread influence did not mention the petitioner at all. Witness letters came from individuals with professional ties to the petitioner. The petitioner's claims were largely unsupported by documentary evidence.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The AAO found the petitioner's evidence insufficient. The citation record showed only two citations to one article. The journal cover page submitted as evidence of widespread influence did not mention the petitioner at all. Witness letters came from individuals with professional ties to the petitioner. The petitioner's claims were largely unsupported by documentary evidence.