AAO found the business plan lacked supporting details for its financial projections and did not explain how forecasts would be realized. The letters of support and expert opinion addressed past accomplishments rather than prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. Creating eight jobs and generating projected sales did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at the national level.
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 business plan lacked supporting details for its financial projections and did not explain how forecasts would be realized. The letters of support and expert opinion addressed past accomplishments rather than prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. Creating eight jobs and generating projected sales did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at the national level.
AAO found the Petitioner's work was limited to supporting students at a single Texas community college campus during one semester, with no demonstrated broader implications nationally. While STEM education generally may be nationally important, the Petitioner did not show his specific endeavor—implemented through his small nonprofit—had prospective 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 +
AAO found the Petitioner's work was limited to supporting students at a single Texas community college campus during one semester, with no demonstrated broader implications nationally. While STEM education generally may be nationally important, the Petitioner did not show his specific endeavor—implemented through his small nonprofit—had prospective impact rising to national importance. His business plan projections were unsupported and did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects.
AAO agrees the endeavor has substantial merit but finds national importance not established because the Petitioner's business plan contains inconsistent salary figures and unsupported revenue projections, and the endeavor does not extend beyond the company's clientele to broadly impact the field or economy.
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 national importance not established because the Petitioner's business plan contains inconsistent salary figures and unsupported revenue projections, and the endeavor does not extend beyond the company's clientele to broadly impact the field or economy.
AAO found the three-year Portuguese licentiate is not equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate per EDGE, and even if it were, the Petitioner failed to document five years of progressive experience; new evidence on appeal was rejected under Soriano.
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 found the three-year Portuguese licentiate is not equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate per EDGE, and even if it were, the Petitioner failed to document five years of progressive experience; new evidence on appeal was rejected under Soriano.
AAO agreed the totality of evidence shows the Petitioner is a competent teacher but does not demonstrate expertise significantly above the ordinary, including failures to show her memberships have elevated requirements, her salary is significantly above geographic peers, or that her modeling/acting background translates to exceptional teaching expertise.
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 agreed the totality of evidence shows the Petitioner is a competent teacher but does not demonstrate expertise significantly above the ordinary, including failures to show her memberships have elevated requirements, her salary is significantly above geographic peers, or that her modeling/acting background translates to exceptional teaching expertise.
The Petitioner's projected employment of six people does not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers; her financial projections were inconsistent and unexplained; her industry articles addressed the field generally rather than her specific endeavor's prospective impact; and her training programs were not shown to extend beyond individual trainees to impact the field more 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 +
The Petitioner's projected employment of six people does not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers; her financial projections were inconsistent and unexplained; her industry articles addressed the field generally rather than her specific endeavor's prospective impact; and her training programs were not shown to extend beyond individual trainees to impact the field more broadly.
Even considering the new documents, the transcripts showed only about three years of university education, insufficient to establish a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Additionally, the diploma was issued in November 2022, six months after the petition was filed.
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 +
Even considering the new documents, the transcripts showed only about three years of university education, insufficient to establish a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Additionally, the diploma was issued in November 2022, six months after the petition was filed.
high salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
AAO 为什么未被说服
Comparisons to the Colombian minimum wage and to general audiovisual-industry averages do not show the Petitioner commanded a salary demonstrating exceptional ability. The ACTV chart figures do not support the Petitioner's calculations, and the Petitioner has not addressed prior discrepancies among the salary chart, employer letters, and translations.
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 +
Comparisons to the Colombian minimum wage and to general audiovisual-industry averages do not show the Petitioner commanded a salary demonstrating exceptional ability. The ACTV chart figures do not support the Petitioner's calculations, and the Petitioner has not addressed prior discrepancies among the salary chart, employer letters, and translations.
remaining five exceptional ability criteria (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)-(F))
AAO 为什么未被说服
Both the Director and AAO on appeal concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy criteria (B) through (F), leaving her with only one of the required three criteria met.
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 +
Both the Director and AAO on appeal concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy criteria (B) through (F), leaving her with only one of the required three criteria met.