Net income / net current assets sufficient to pay proffered wage
AAO 为什么未被说服
The predecessor had negative net income of ($267,995) and negative net current assets of ($307,943) in 2005. No corporate tax return was provided for 2006. Accrual-basis adjustments to a cash-method taxpayer's returns were rejected. Unaudited financial statements were rejected as non-compliant with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).…
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 predecessor had negative net income of ($267,995) and negative net current assets of ($307,943) in 2005. No corporate tax return was provided for 2006. Accrual-basis adjustments to a cash-method taxpayer's returns were rejected. Unaudited financial statements were rejected as non-compliant with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Even if 2006 financials were sufficient in isolation, the petitioner's 425+ simultaneously pending petitions required it to show it could pay all proffered wages, and it failed to do so.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
The letters confirmed employment but did not show that the petitioner's roles were leading or critical; one letter contained contradictory dates; no evidence established distinguished reputations for the organizations; and the petitioner failed to compare his roles to those of other employees.
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 letters confirmed employment but did not show that the petitioner's roles were leading or critical; one letter contained contradictory dates; no evidence established distinguished reputations for the organizations; and the petitioner failed to compare his roles to those of other employees.
Median regional wage statistics do not satisfy the requirement; the petitioner's 2001 W-2 earnings of $60,000 were $26,000 below the Level 2 Wage of $86,320; counsel's assertions about the $41,000 salary were unsupported by documentary evidence; and salary figures did not reflect field-wide comparators.
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 +
Median regional wage statistics do not satisfy the requirement; the petitioner's 2001 W-2 earnings of $60,000 were $26,000 below the Level 2 Wage of $86,320; counsel's assertions about the $41,000 salary were unsupported by documentary evidence; and salary figures did not reflect field-wide comparators.
Considering all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner's open-access association memberships, unverified 1985 thesis, routine employment history, and moderate salary do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the financial analyst 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 +
Considering all evidence in the aggregate, the petitioner's open-access association memberships, unverified 1985 thesis, routine employment history, and moderate salary do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the financial analyst field.
GARP membership required only submitting an application and paying dues (or nothing for affiliate status), while FINRA registration required only passing standardized exams and continuing education — neither constitutes outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
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 +
GARP membership required only submitting an application and paying dues (or nothing for affiliate status), while FINRA registration required only passing standardized exams and continuing education — neither constitutes outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
The petitioner failed to establish that he authored the submitted thesis (the document had conflicting titles and the website did not confirm authorship), and the recommendation letters gave only general favorable statements without explaining how the thesis constituted a contribution of major significance. Additionally, the criterion requires more than one original contribution of major significance.
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 +
The petitioner failed to establish that he authored the submitted thesis (the document had conflicting titles and the website did not confirm authorship), and the recommendation letters gave only general favorable statements without explaining how the thesis constituted a contribution of major significance. Additionally, the criterion requires more than one original contribution of major significance.
Membership must be in associations requiring outstanding achievements of members as judged by recognized national or international experts. It is insufficient to demonstrate membership in an association without establishing that the association meets that standard.
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 +
Membership must be in associations requiring outstanding achievements of members as judged by recognized national or international experts. It is insufficient to demonstrate membership in an association without establishing that the association meets that standard.
A single article is insufficient; the criterion requires published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner did not submit documentary evidence establishing published material about her work in such outlets.
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 +
A single article is insufficient; the criterion requires published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner did not submit documentary evidence establishing published material about her work in such outlets.
Submitting CDs and copyright applications is insufficient without documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field.
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 +
Submitting CDs and copyright applications is insufficient without documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field.
It is insufficient to submit a third-party letter generally claiming the petitioner won a $1,000 cash prize without documentary evidence demonstrating receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. The plural form of the criterion also implies more than one award is required.
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 +
It is insufficient to submit a third-party letter generally claiming the petitioner won a $1,000 cash prize without documentary evidence demonstrating receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. The plural form of the criterion also implies more than one award is required.