AAO agreed with the Director that the record failed to show the endeavor would have a broad, nationally important impact. The projected 11 employees and $877,000 in revenue were insufficient to establish prospective 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 agreed with the Director that the record failed to show the endeavor would have a broad, nationally important impact. The projected 11 employees and $877,000 in revenue were insufficient to establish prospective national-level impact.
AAO found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his education and consulting services extend beyond the company's specific clientele to have broader implications at a national level, nor that they offer original innovations with wider implications in the IT field.…
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 the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his education and consulting services extend beyond the company's specific clientele to have broader implications at a national level, nor that they offer original innovations with wider implications in the IT field. General assertions about economic contributions and unsupported business plan projections were insufficient, and even crediting the financial projections, the revenue and job creation would not constitute substantial positive economic effects.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance, because there is no evidence of broader field impact, original innovations, potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects beyond the Petitioner's own business, clients, and trainees.
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 the endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance, because there is no evidence of broader field impact, original innovations, potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects beyond the Petitioner's own business, clients, and trainees.
The diploma conferred only a 'Title of Physiotherapist' without referencing any degree level; the credential evaluator's opinion was unreliable because it applied the nonimmigrant '3-for-1' rule inapplicable in immigrant visa proceedings and relied on self-reported work experience beyond the evaluator's expertise. The Petitioner did not respond to the NOID to address these deficiencies.
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 diploma conferred only a 'Title of Physiotherapist' without referencing any degree level; the credential evaluator's opinion was unreliable because it applied the nonimmigrant '3-for-1' rule inapplicable in immigrant visa proceedings and relied on self-reported work experience beyond the evaluator's expertise. The Petitioner did not respond to the NOID to address these deficiencies.
AAO found the Petitioner's business plan projections lacked sufficient basis and, even if credited, did not demonstrate operations at a scale rising to national importance. The proposed endeavor's impact would not extend beyond his immediate area of operations or the individuals directly served, and he failed to show his ventures would have broader implications to the relevant fields or significantly reduce a national STEM…
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 the Petitioner's business plan projections lacked sufficient basis and, even if credited, did not demonstrate operations at a scale rising to national importance. The proposed endeavor's impact would not extend beyond his immediate area of operations or the individuals directly served, and he failed to show his ventures would have broader implications to the relevant fields or significantly reduce a national STEM labor shortage.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked national importance. Articles about general operations managers did not establish broader field-level impact, and the business plan's revenue and job creation projections lacked sufficient evidentiary basis and were not of a scale rising to 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 agreed that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked national importance. Articles about general operations managers did not establish broader field-level impact, and the business plan's revenue and job creation projections lacked sufficient evidentiary basis and were not of a scale rising to national importance.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit (journalism relating to social equity issues) but agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show national importance. The professional plan did not specify publication outlets, circulation, income projections, or job creation.…
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 the endeavor has substantial merit (journalism relating to social equity issues) but agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show national importance. The professional plan did not specify publication outlets, circulation, income projections, or job creation. The teaching/lecture component, like the STEM-teaching proposal in Dhanasar itself, did not show impact extending broadly to the field of journalism at a level commensurate with national importance.
commanding a high salary or significantly high remuneration
AAO 为什么未被说服
While AAO disagreed with the Director's reasoning that prospective salary cannot be considered, and found the W-2 and employment verification letter provided sufficient salary evidence, the Petitioner failed to provide adequate comparative wage data for a proper comparison position at the director level.
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 +
While AAO disagreed with the Director's reasoning that prospective salary cannot be considered, and found the W-2 and employment verification letter provided sufficient salary evidence, the Petitioner failed to provide adequate comparative wage data for a proper comparison position at the director level.
AAO agreed with the Director that the recommendation and expert opinion letters did not establish original contributions of major significance. The letters praised the Petitioner generally but lacked specificity about how his work impacted the field, and the original articles lacked complete English translations.
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 agreed with the Director that the recommendation and expert opinion letters did not establish original contributions of major significance. The letters praised the Petitioner generally but lacked specificity about how his work impacted the field, and the original articles lacked complete English translations.