AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her company and its clientele to have broader national implications. The business plan's projections for job creation and revenue lacked sufficient supporting detail, and the expert opinion letter's assertions were unsubstantiated.…
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 did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her company and its clientele to have broader national implications. The business plan's projections for job creation and revenue lacked sufficient supporting detail, and the expert opinion letter's assertions were unsubstantiated. AAO also noted that the importance of the legal consulting industry generally is not the relevant inquiry; what matters is the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's particular endeavor.
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding no evidence in the record reflecting that the Beneficiary made original contributions of major significance. The Director failed to explain or identify the evidence supporting this finding.
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 disagreed with the Director, finding no evidence in the record reflecting that the Beneficiary made original contributions of major significance. The Director failed to explain or identify the evidence supporting this finding.
AAO concluded that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to show national importance because the letters and other evidence did not demonstrate broader impact beyond prospective clients, nor significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects.
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 concluded that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to show national importance because the letters and other evidence did not demonstrate broader impact beyond prospective clients, nor significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects.
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor — improving nutrition and overall health of people in the U.S. through clinical work, combating misinformation, and collaborating with partners — lacked the broader implications required for 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 agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor — improving nutrition and overall health of people in the U.S. through clinical work, combating misinformation, and collaborating with partners — lacked the broader implications required for national importance under Dhanasar. While her patients and partners may find her work valuable, the Petitioner did not show implications within her field, improvement of human knowledge, research outcomes, scientific advancements, or a particularized economic impact.
AAO concluded the evidence focused on the Petitioner's qualifications (relevant to prong 2) rather than the prospective impact of the endeavor, and did not show employment of U.S. workers, substantial economic effects, or broader industry-wide 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 concluded the evidence focused on the Petitioner's qualifications (relevant to prong 2) rather than the prospective impact of the endeavor, and did not show employment of U.S. workers, substantial economic effects, or broader industry-wide impact.
AAO agrees the endeavor has substantial merit but finds the Petitioner improperly relies on the importance of the industry rather than the specific endeavor's prospective impact, and the projected employment of 16 direct/34 indirect jobs and policy advocacy lack independent evidence of broader 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 agrees the endeavor has substantial merit but finds the Petitioner improperly relies on the importance of the industry rather than the specific endeavor's prospective impact, and the projected employment of 16 direct/34 indirect jobs and policy advocacy lack independent evidence of broader impact.
The policy manual requires at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent; experience alone cannot substitute. The credential evaluator's reliance on the 'three-for-one' rule is inapplicable to immigrant employment petitions, making the evaluation of little probative value.
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 policy manual requires at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent; experience alone cannot substitute. The credential evaluator's reliance on the 'three-for-one' rule is inapplicable to immigrant employment petitions, making the evaluation of little probative value.
original contributions of major significance in the field
裁决如何说明
The AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the three-criterion threshold regardless of the outcome on criterion (v), making it unnecessary to reach.
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 +
The AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the three-criterion threshold regardless of the outcome on criterion (v), making it unnecessary to reach.