lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
证据为何得到认可
AAO held the Director erroneously disregarded competitive athletic awards and that the 2017 bronze medal in the adult blackbelt category satisfied the plain language of (h)(3)(i) given media descriptions of the championship.
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 held the Director erroneously disregarded competitive athletic awards and that the 2017 bronze medal in the adult blackbelt category satisfied the plain language of (h)(3)(i) given media descriptions of the championship.
AAO noted the Director failed to address the additional evidence and claims submitted in the RFE response regarding an international award, and remanded for proper evaluation.
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 noted the Director failed to address the additional evidence and claims submitted in the RFE response regarding an international award, and remanded for proper evaluation.
AAO found the Director failed to address the additional claims and evidence submitted in the RFE response and remanded for full evaluation of whether the contributions rise to the level 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 +
AAO found the Director failed to address the additional claims and evidence submitted in the RFE response and remanded for full evaluation of whether the contributions rise to the level of major significance.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
裁决如何说明
AAO disagreed with the Petitioner's argument that the magazine could impute El Nacional's reputation but found the Director may not have considered all relevant evidence of the magazine's own reputation and the Petitioner's role, including RFE response evidence that it was Venezuela's first publication licensed for use in at least 10 other countries.
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 disagreed with the Petitioner's argument that the magazine could impute El Nacional's reputation but found the Director may not have considered all relevant evidence of the magazine's own reputation and the Petitioner's role, including RFE response evidence that it was Venezuela's first publication licensed for use in at least 10 other countries.
AAO found that the Petitioner established high salary or significantly high remuneration satisfying criterion (ix), disagreeing with the Director's implied 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 +
AAO found that the Petitioner established high salary or significantly high remuneration satisfying criterion (ix), disagreeing with the Director's implied finding.
AAO agreed the materials did not substantially discuss the Petitioner and his work, and that the comparable evidence argument was not established because the Petitioner failed to show the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. The regulation contemplates professional and trade publications tailored to specialized readerships.
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 the materials did not substantially discuss the Petitioner and his work, and that the comparable evidence argument was not established because the Petitioner failed to show the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. The regulation contemplates professional and trade publications tailored to specialized readerships.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner established a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a 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 +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner established a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
AAO found the Director erred by evaluating the Petitioner's business contributions through the lens of scientific contributions, and remanded for reconsideration applying the correct framework for business contributions.
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 the Director erred by evaluating the Petitioner's business contributions through the lens of scientific contributions, and remanded for reconsideration applying the correct framework for business contributions.