Conclusory statements and repetition of prior arguments do not show that the appellate decision misapplied law or policy or was incorrect on the record.
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 +
Conclusory statements and repetition of prior arguments do not show that the appellate decision misapplied law or policy or was incorrect on the record.
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first prong's national importance element was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
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 declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first prong's national importance element was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
AAO declined to reach the second prong because the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first prong's national importance element was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO declined to reach the second prong because the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first prong's national importance element was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
AAO found the Director's analysis of prong 2 inadequate because she cited only a generic lack of evidence without engaging in a specific analysis of the evidence submitted. AAO remands for a proper assessment.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the Director's analysis of prong 2 inadequate because she cited only a generic lack of evidence without engaging in a specific analysis of the evidence submitted. AAO remands for a proper assessment.
The AAO concluded that the evidence focused on the importance of the industry/profession rather than the specific endeavor; expert letters, past achievements, the USDA study, and labor-shortage arguments did not demonstrate broader impact 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 +
The AAO concluded that the evidence focused on the importance of the industry/profession rather than the specific endeavor; expert letters, past achievements, the USDA study, and labor-shortage arguments did not demonstrate broader impact rising to national importance.
Salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
AAO 为什么未被说服
Bank transfers were not shown to be salary, share subscriptions do not establish remuneration, and corporate profits are not the individual's income under Matter of Soffici. The record also lacks comparative data tying the Petitioner's earnings to exceptional ability.
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 +
Bank transfers were not shown to be salary, share subscriptions do not establish remuneration, and corporate profits are not the individual's income under Matter of Soffici. The record also lacks comparative data tying the Petitioner's earnings to exceptional ability.
10 years of full-time experience in the occupation (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
AAO 为什么未被说服
The graphic-artist letter does not relate to the occupation sought, and the CEO letters do not show full-time employment or describe duties as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). Business formation and contract documents do not establish length, full-time status, or duties.
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 graphic-artist letter does not relate to the occupation sought, and the CEO letters do not show full-time employment or describe duties as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). Business formation and contract documents do not establish length, full-time status, or duties.