Counsel relied on testimonial letters and self-serving letters from the petitioner-employer, which AAO found insufficient to distinguish the beneficiary's role. The plain language of the regulation requires a leading or critical role with more than one organization, and only one was claimed.
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 +
Counsel relied on testimonial letters and self-serving letters from the petitioner-employer, which AAO found insufficient to distinguish the beneficiary's role. The plain language of the regulation requires a leading or critical role with more than one organization, and only one was claimed.
AAO found that experts clearly described how petitioner's training methodologies were original and of major significance, and that they are being widely applied throughout the field, satisfying this criterion.
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 +
AAO found that experts clearly described how petitioner's training methodologies were original and of major significance, and that they are being widely applied throughout the field, satisfying this criterion.
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The awards were limited to company employees, were granted to over 100 recipients in engineering alone in 2007, and lacked evidence of national/international recognition in 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 awards were limited to company employees, were granted to over 100 recipients in engineering alone in 2007, and lacked evidence of national/international recognition in the field.
AAO concluded the petitioner's contributions were largely confined to his employer, did not show widespread industry implementation as of the filing date, and reflected occupational performance rather than major-significance contributions; duplicative wording across two reference letters reduced their probative value.
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 +
AAO concluded the petitioner's contributions were largely confined to his employer, did not show widespread industry implementation as of the filing date, and reflected occupational performance rather than major-significance contributions; duplicative wording across two reference letters reduced their probative value.