AAO agrees the endeavor has substantial merit and additionally finds national importance based on the Petitioner's significant role in federally funded research producing new insights into cognitive functions, widely disseminated in major journals.
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 agrees the endeavor has substantial merit and additionally finds national importance based on the Petitioner's significant role in federally funded research producing new insights into cognitive functions, widely disseminated in major journals.
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
裁决如何说明
AAO reserves formal resolution of the final merits determination, remanding to SCOPS. AAO notes in a footnote that the record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition.
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 reserves formal resolution of the final merits determination, remanding to SCOPS. AAO notes in a footnote that the record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition.
Meeting at least three of ten evidentiary criteria (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)–(x))
裁决如何说明
AAO declines to reach this issue on appeal and remands to SCOPS for a proper evaluation of the evidence under the eight claimed criteria. In a footnote, AAO advises that its own aggregate review of the record does not support a finding that the initial evidence threshold is met, but does not formally resolve the issue.
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 declines to reach this issue on appeal and remands to SCOPS for a proper evaluation of the evidence under the eight claimed criteria. In a footnote, AAO advises that its own aggregate review of the record does not support a finding that the initial evidence threshold is met, but does not formally resolve the issue.
Field of endeavor eligibility (law vs. sciences/arts/education/business/athletics)
证据为何得到认可
AAO found that the petitioner's work as an international attorney and governance and compliance advisor, including his expertise in international environmental law, public administration, and legislative design, places his area within social science or business — both recognized EB-1 fields. SCOPS's categorical exclusion of law was incorrect.
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 found that the petitioner's work as an international attorney and governance and compliance advisor, including his expertise in international environmental law, public administration, and legislative design, places his area within social science or business — both recognized EB-1 fields. SCOPS's categorical exclusion of law was incorrect.