The motion was filed 48 days after the dismissal decision, beyond the 33-day window, because the petitioner improperly sent it to the AAO instead of the originating office.
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 motion was filed 48 days after the dismissal decision, beyond the 33-day window, because the petitioner improperly sent it to the AAO instead of the originating office.
Lozada requirement 2 – proof that former counsel was notified of ineffective assistance allegations
AAO 为什么未被说服
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is insufficient. The petitioner provided no evidence that former counsel was put on notice of her claims, and the petitioner did not even address this requirement in her affidavit.
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 +
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is insufficient. The petitioner provided no evidence that former counsel was put on notice of her claims, and the petitioner did not even address this requirement in her affidavit.
Lozada requirement 1 – detailed affidavit of agreement with former counsel
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's affidavit used speculative language and did not state that she specifically requested her former attorney to file the petition as a taekwondo competitor, nor did it establish a detailed agreement about what action counsel should take and how he failed to uphold his portion.
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's affidavit used speculative language and did not state that she specifically requested her former attorney to file the petition as a taekwondo competitor, nor did it establish a detailed agreement about what action counsel should take and how he failed to uphold his portion.
The motion was received 34 days after the AAO decision, exceeding the 30-day deadline, and petitioner provided no explanation that the delay was reasonable and beyond her control.
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 motion was received 34 days after the AAO decision, exceeding the 30-day deadline, and petitioner provided no explanation that the delay was reasonable and beyond her control.
Lozada requirement 3 – complaint with disciplinary authority or explanation for not filing
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's stated reasons for not filing a disciplinary complaint were insufficient. AAO noted that no legal maneuvering or particular level of education is needed to send a letter to the state bar, and that current counsel should have informed the petitioner of the simple steps needed.
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's stated reasons for not filing a disciplinary complaint were insufficient. AAO noted that no legal maneuvering or particular level of education is needed to send a letter to the state bar, and that current counsel should have informed the petitioner of the simple steps needed.
The plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4) requires the job offer to demonstrate that the position requires a professional holding an advanced degree. The labor certification only required a bachelor's degree plus four years of experience, which does not meet the advanced degree standard under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Post-adjudication reclassification to EB-3 is not permitted as it constitutes a material change.
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 plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4) requires the job offer to demonstrate that the position requires a professional holding an advanced degree. The labor certification only required a bachelor's degree plus four years of experience, which does not meet the advanced degree standard under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Post-adjudication reclassification to EB-3 is not permitted as it constitutes a material change.
Job offer requires an advanced degree professional
AAO 为什么未被说服
The labor certification allows a reasonable combination of education and experience as an alternative to a degree, meaning the position does not require an advanced degree professional. Counsel abandoned this claim by not addressing it on appeal.
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 labor certification allows a reasonable combination of education and experience as an alternative to a degree, meaning the position does not require an advanced degree professional. Counsel abandoned this claim by not addressing it on appeal.
Beneficiary holds a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary's three-year bachelor's degree from Pakistan does not qualify as a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. four-year baccalaureate under Matter of Shah. The evaluators failed to provide evidence that Pakistan provides 13 years of primary and secondary education, that the program was normally four years, or that the beneficiary received transfer credit.…
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 three-year bachelor's degree from Pakistan does not qualify as a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. four-year baccalaureate under Matter of Shah. The evaluators failed to provide evidence that Pakistan provides 13 years of primary and secondary education, that the program was normally four years, or that the beneficiary received transfer credit. The post-secondary diploma and bachelor's degree are two separate programs, not a single degree.
Though net income in 2007 ($104,028) exceeded the proffered wage, the petitioner's approximately 16 other simultaneously pending I-140 petitions with similar proffered wages made net income insufficient to cover all competing obligations.
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 +
Though net income in 2007 ($104,028) exceeded the proffered wage, the petitioner's approximately 16 other simultaneously pending I-140 petitions with similar proffered wages made net income insufficient to cover all competing obligations.
Overall magnitude of business activities (Sonegawa totality of circumstances)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found no basis for a favorable totality-of-circumstances determination: the petitioner showed no significant business growth pattern, no uncharacteristic expenditure explaining inability to pay, and no evidence of sound business reputation comparable to the Sonegawa petitioner.
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 no basis for a favorable totality-of-circumstances determination: the petitioner showed no significant business growth pattern, no uncharacteristic expenditure explaining inability to pay, and no evidence of sound business reputation comparable to the Sonegawa petitioner.