License to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner did not show that a license or certification is required to be employed as a computer systems analyst. The certifications may aid employability but are not shown to be required for the occupation.
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 did not show that a license or certification is required to be employed as a computer systems analyst. The certifications may aid employability but are not shown to be required for the occupation.
Evidence of membership in professional associations
裁决如何说明
AAO declined to review this criterion because even if met, the Petitioner could not reach the required three criteria given failures on (A), (C), (D), and (F).
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 +
AAO declined to review this criterion because even if met, the Petitioner could not reach the required three criteria given failures on (A), (C), (D), and (F).
At least ten years of full-time work experience in the occupation
证据为何得到认可
AAO concurred with the Director's finding that the Petitioner met this criterion; no further discussion was warranted as both parties accepted this 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 +
AAO concurred with the Director's finding that the Petitioner met this criterion; no further discussion was warranted as both parties accepted this finding.
AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence threshold, but noted in advisory terms that the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
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 +
AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence threshold, but noted in advisory terms that the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner met the substantial merit sub-element but failed to establish national importance. The submitted publications addressed patents generally rather than the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, the client letters showed benefits only to individual clients rather than broader field impact, and the Petitioner's own patents were relevant to the second prong (being well-position…
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 met the substantial merit sub-element but failed to establish national importance. The submitted publications addressed patents generally rather than the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, the client letters showed benefits only to individual clients rather than broader field impact, and the Petitioner's own patents were relevant to the second prong (being well-positioned) rather than the national importance of his proposed endeavor as an attorney.