AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was limited to his existing employment and that the record lacked documentary evidence corroborating claims that his work promotes U.S. interests. The testimonial evidence and publications only outlined contributions to his current employer and stakeholders, not broader national-level 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 +
AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was limited to his existing employment and that the record lacked documentary evidence corroborating claims that his work promotes U.S. interests. The testimonial evidence and publications only outlined contributions to his current employer and stakeholders, not broader national-level impact. The employer letter emphasized on appeal also failed to describe how the Petitioner's work promotes U.S. interests or has national impact beyond the organization.
AAO found that the Petitioner conflated the importance of the financial sector as an industry with the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor, and that the record lacked sufficient evidence of prospective impact — such as projected economic effects or job creation — rising to the level of national importance under Dhanasar.
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 found that the Petitioner conflated the importance of the financial sector as an industry with the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor, and that the record lacked sufficient evidence of prospective impact — such as projected economic effects or job creation — rising to the level of national importance under Dhanasar.
AAO found that merely working in or establishing a business in architecture and urban planning in a growing community with a worker shortage is insufficient for national importance. The Petitioner's financial projections lacked corroborating independent evidence and did not rise to the level of national importance.…
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 found that merely working in or establishing a business in architecture and urban planning in a growing community with a worker shortage is insufficient for national importance. The Petitioner's financial projections lacked corroborating independent evidence and did not rise to the level of national importance. Training and internship activities likewise did not demonstrate broader field impact, and alignment with government initiatives did not establish the specific proposed endeavor's national importance.
AAO agreed substantial merit was shown but found the Petitioner did not establish national importance: the projected hiring of 8-24 workers and modest revenue were insufficient against an industry employing 3 million and generating $665.9 billion; expert and recommendation letters did not address broader impact of the specific endeavor; and articles addressed general industry issues rather than the proposed endeavor.
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 agreed substantial merit was shown but found the Petitioner did not establish national importance: the projected hiring of 8-24 workers and modest revenue were insufficient against an industry employing 3 million and generating $665.9 billion; expert and recommendation letters did not address broader impact of the specific endeavor; and articles addressed general industry issues rather than the proposed endeavor.
AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence addressed the importance of the trucking industry generally rather than the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The business plan's revenue and employment projections were uncorroborated and did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects rising to the level of national importance.…
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 found that the Petitioner's evidence addressed the importance of the trucking industry generally rather than the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The business plan's revenue and employment projections were uncorroborated and did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects rising to the level of national importance. Evidence submitted on appeal (revised business plan, letters) was not considered because Petitioner had prior notice and opportunity to submit it.
AAO agreed that the evidence—industry articles, expert letter, letters of recommendation, letters of intent, and business plan—addressed the cumulative benefits of the real estate industry and foreign direct investment in general, not the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's individual endeavor.…
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 agreed that the evidence—industry articles, expert letter, letters of recommendation, letters of intent, and business plan—addressed the cumulative benefits of the real estate industry and foreign direct investment in general, not the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's individual endeavor. The business plan projecting 8 employees and roughly $1M in annual sales did not demonstrate impact rising to the level of national importance.