AAO found the Director's third-prong analysis was conclusory and failed to engage with the Petitioner's specific evidence and claims, requiring remand for re-evaluation in light of the corrected first- and second-prong analyses.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Director's third-prong analysis was conclusory and failed to engage with the Petitioner's specific evidence and claims, requiring remand for re-evaluation in light of the corrected first- and second-prong analyses.
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's finding, noting that the Petitioner's proposed consulting work would not extend beyond her company and clientele to impact the consulting field or U.S. economy more broadly. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects at the national level.…
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's finding, noting that the Petitioner's proposed consulting work would not extend beyond her company and clientele to impact the consulting field or U.S. economy more broadly. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects at the national level. Additionally, new evidence referenced on appeal was not actually submitted.
The AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence addressed the general importance of cybersecurity as a profession and industry but failed to demonstrate how his specific proposed endeavor would have broader prospective national impact.…
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 +
The AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence addressed the general importance of cybersecurity as a profession and industry but failed to demonstrate how his specific proposed endeavor would have broader prospective national impact. His described activities reflect typical duties of a cybersecurity engineer, his recommendation letters lacked specificity, and he did not show meaningful job creation or economic effects attributable to his particular work.
The Petitioner failed to identify how any law or policy was incorrectly applied. The Petitioner's attempt to reframe the proposed endeavor around a heavy equipment rental business was already rejected as a material change under Matter of Izummi, and the Petitioner did not address or rebut that 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 +
The Petitioner failed to identify how any law or policy was incorrectly applied. The Petitioner's attempt to reframe the proposed endeavor around a heavy equipment rental business was already rejected as a material change under Matter of Izummi, and the Petitioner did not address or rebut that finding.
The motion to reopen does not identify a new fact and is not supported by documentary evidence of a new fact, failing to satisfy the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(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 motion to reopen does not identify a new fact and is not supported by documentary evidence of a new fact, failing to satisfy the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).