Net current assets sufficient to cover proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's end-of-year net current assets were $22,145 (2007), $30,082 (2008), $20,596 (2009), and -$33,350 (2010), all insufficient to cover the $40,040 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 +
The petitioner's end-of-year net current assets were $22,145 (2007), $30,082 (2008), $20,596 (2009), and -$33,350 (2010), all insufficient to cover the $40,040 proffered wage.
The AAO found that in the aggregate the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner's evidence showed only that he participated in competitions and entertainment productions since 2008, without distinguishing himself from others in the field. Comparison with highly accomplished individuals in his field showed the petitioner had not reached the very top.
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 that in the aggregate the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner's evidence showed only that he participated in competitions and entertainment productions since 2008, without distinguishing himself from others in the field. Comparison with highly accomplished individuals in his field showed the petitioner had not reached the very top.
Most items lacked required title, date, or author. Most were not primarily about the petitioner. Websites were not shown to be major media. Post-filing items were excluded. Only one item was about the petitioner relating to his work, but it lacked date and author and was not shown to be major media, and even if it qualified, the regulation requires more than one publication.
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 +
Most items lacked required title, date, or author. Most were not primarily about the petitioner. Websites were not shown to be major media. Post-filing items were excluded. Only one item was about the petitioner relating to his work, but it lacked date and author and was not shown to be major media, and even if it qualified, the regulation requires more than one publication.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that television shows, movies, or tours equate to organizations or establishments. He also failed to submit evidence distinguishing his roles from other performers or drivers as leading or critical. Promotional materials listed him as one of several cast members, not as the lead.
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 demonstrate that television shows, movies, or tours equate to organizations or establishments. He also failed to submit evidence distinguishing his roles from other performers or drivers as leading or critical. Promotional materials listed him as one of several cast members, not as the lead.
The AAO found the petitioner failed to submit primary evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2), and the secondary evidence was therefore not considered. For Monster Jam, screenshots did not establish that prizes or awards were garnered for finishes. For movie awards, the awards were not specifically presented to the petitioner individually.
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 petitioner failed to submit primary evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2), and the secondary evidence was therefore not considered. For Monster Jam, screenshots did not establish that prizes or awards were garnered for finishes. For movie awards, the awards were not specifically presented to the petitioner individually.
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
Reviewing all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner's achievements were largely confined to the early 2000s with no evidence of sustained acclaim up to the 2009 filing date. His rating had declined, he had not competed for any national team since 2000, and he was characterized as 'promising' rather than elite. The evidence does not show he is among the small percentage at the very top of his 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 +
Reviewing all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner's achievements were largely confined to the early 2000s with no evidence of sustained acclaim up to the 2009 filing date. His rating had declined, he had not competed for any national team since 2000, and he was characterized as 'promising' rather than elite. The evidence does not show he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
AAO 为什么未被说服
There was no documentary evidence showing that the Mongolian national team had a distinguished reputation, nor that the petitioner's role was leading or critical as distinguished from teammates. The assertion that Monchess was 'Mongolia's most famous chess club' was unsupported, and the chess clubs lacked evidence of distinguished reputation.
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 +
There was no documentary evidence showing that the Mongolian national team had a distinguished reputation, nor that the petitioner's role was leading or critical as distinguished from teammates. The assertion that Monchess was 'Mongolia's most famous chess club' was unsupported, and the chess clubs lacked evidence of distinguished reputation.
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner relied primarily on a third-party letter attesting to prizes without submitting primary documentary evidence from tournament organizers. The submitted evidence did not establish that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, and a competition being open to international participants is not alone sufficient to show national or international recognition of the award.
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 relied primarily on a third-party letter attesting to prizes without submitting primary documentary evidence from tournament organizers. The submitted evidence did not establish that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized, and a competition being open to international participants is not alone sufficient to show national or international recognition of the award.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The record lacked documentary evidence that membership on the Mongolian national chess team required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. USCF and the petitioner's chess clubs also lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements of members. The petitioner's FIDE rating had declined to 2346 by 2009, below the usual International Master level.
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 record lacked documentary evidence that membership on the Mongolian national chess team required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. USCF and the petitioner's chess clubs also lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements of members. The petitioner's FIDE rating had declined to 2346 by 2009, below the usual International Master level.
The FIDE International Master title is attained through achieving certain norms or ratings rather than winning a tournament outright, and more than 3,000 male players hold the designation. The Grandmaster title is the highest FIDE confers and the International Master does not represent the very top of the 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 FIDE International Master title is attained through achieving certain norms or ratings rather than winning a tournament outright, and more than 3,000 male players hold the designation. The Grandmaster title is the highest FIDE confers and the International Master does not represent the very top of the field. There is also no documentary evidence of widespread recognition of the petitioner's receipt of the diploma commensurate with a major internationally recognized award.