official academic record (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A))
裁决如何说明
AAO did not resolve this criterion but noted the Director contradicted the RFE by reversing her prior finding that this criterion was met, seemingly overlooking the Level 3 certificate.
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 resolve this criterion but noted the Director contradicted the RFE by reversing her prior finding that this criterion was met, seemingly overlooking the Level 3 certificate.
AAO found no error in the Director's ultimate determination despite criticizing one non-dispositive ground. The business plan projected modest net profits, a net worth declining over three years, and only six employees, insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects. Expert and colleague letters did not show impact beyond the Petitioner's clients or 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 no error in the Director's ultimate determination despite criticizing one non-dispositive ground. The business plan projected modest net profits, a net worth declining over three years, and only six employees, insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects. Expert and colleague letters did not show impact beyond the Petitioner's clients or field. General industry articles about the importance of cybersecurity and privacy did not address the Petitioner's specific endeavor.
Industry-level reports and articles established the importance of the trucking industry generally but did not address the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The expert letter discussed supply chain issues but failed to articulate how the Petitioner's company's work would extend beyond individual clients to impact the industry broadly.…
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 +
Industry-level reports and articles established the importance of the trucking industry generally but did not address the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The expert letter discussed supply chain issues but failed to articulate how the Petitioner's company's work would extend beyond individual clients to impact the industry broadly. The business plan's employment and financial projections were unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate national importance.
salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. As of the filing date, the Petitioner's submitted evidence showed a salary of $76,667 — significantly below the average for robotics engineers — and a subsequent raise did not demonstrate eligibility as of the filing date.
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 AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. As of the filing date, the Petitioner's submitted evidence showed a salary of $76,667 — significantly below the average for robotics engineers — and a subsequent raise did not demonstrate eligibility as of the filing date.