Commanded a salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the applicable benchmark salary for his specific profession and experience level in Brazil, and that it was unclear whether the income reflected in his tax returns represented salary for an IT profession or profits/dividends from a business venture.
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 that the Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the applicable benchmark salary for his specific profession and experience level in Brazil, and that it was unclear whether the income reflected in his tax returns represented salary for an IT profession or profits/dividends from a business venture.
AAO agreed that the research component of the Petitioner's endeavor meets prong one, but withdrew the Director's determination as to the teaching component, finding that teaching courses in linguistics and TESOL would not meet the national importance standard under Dhanasar.
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 +
AAO agreed that the research component of the Petitioner's endeavor meets prong one, but withdrew the Director's determination as to the teaching component, finding that teaching courses in linguistics and TESOL would not meet the national importance standard under Dhanasar.
Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, government entities, or professional or business organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director that the submitted letters of recommendation largely highlighted the Petitioner's general skills and capabilities rather than his achievements and significant contributions to his field. The letters described him as a valued employee and co-worker but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 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 +
AAO agreed with the Director that the submitted letters of recommendation largely highlighted the Petitioner's general skills and capabilities rather than his achievements and significant contributions to his field. The letters described him as a valued employee and co-worker but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
The Petitioner did not raise criterion (E) until appeal, submitting new evidence for the first time. AAO declined to consider this evidence because the Petitioner had been put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to submit it earlier.
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 did not raise criterion (E) until appeal, submitting new evidence for the first time. AAO declined to consider this evidence because the Petitioner had been put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to submit it earlier.
Official academic record showing degree relating to area of exceptional ability
证据为何得到认可
The Director, upon dismissing the combined motion, concluded the Petitioner established eligibility under criterion (A) by submitting an official academic record. AAO did not disturb this finding.
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 Director, upon dismissing the combined motion, concluded the Petitioner established eligibility under criterion (A) by submitting an official academic record. AAO did not disturb this finding.
At least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
裁决如何说明
AAO explicitly declined to review criterion (B) because even if met, the Petitioner's failure on criteria (D), (E), and (F) meant he could not reach the required minimum of three criteria.
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 explicitly declined to review criterion (B) because even if met, the Petitioner's failure on criteria (D), (E), and (F) meant he could not reach the required minimum of three criteria.
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding his appeal arguments vague and unsupported. His credentials and industry reports did not demonstrate that the endeavor's impact would extend beyond his own clients and employees to a national scale, and the submitted reports did not pertain specifically to his proposed endeavor.
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 +
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding his appeal arguments vague and unsupported. His credentials and industry reports did not demonstrate that the endeavor's impact would extend beyond his own clients and employees to a national scale, and the submitted reports did not pertain specifically to his proposed endeavor.