Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
The reference letters for the restaurant and church roles failed to meet regulatory requirements—the restaurant employer letter was not submitted, and the church letter lacked specific dates, duties, and position details.…
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 reference letters for the restaurant and church roles failed to meet regulatory requirements—the restaurant employer letter was not submitted, and the church letter lacked specific dates, duties, and position details. Letters about his current dental franchise role praised his success but did not sufficiently document his specific professional position, describe progressive experience in his specialty, or establish that the industry normally requires an advanced degree.
AAO concluded the Petitioner did not show how her work for individual companies and trainees would have broader implications for the field of business operations or substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. Support and expert letters discussed past accomplishments or general industry issues rather than the specific endeavor's 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 concluded the Petitioner did not show how her work for individual companies and trainees would have broader implications for the field of business operations or substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. Support and expert letters discussed past accomplishments or general industry issues rather than the specific endeavor's broader impact.
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The comparable evidence claim was raised for the first time on appeal and was not properly before the AAO. In any event, the Petitioner failed to explain why any specific criterion does not apply to her occupation, and a general inability to meet the standard criteria does not entitle a petitioner to substitute comparable evidence.
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 comparable evidence claim was raised for the first time on appeal and was not properly before the AAO. In any event, the Petitioner failed to explain why any specific criterion does not apply to her occupation, and a general inability to meet the standard criteria does not entitle a petitioner to substitute comparable evidence.
Because the Petitioner met criterion (ix) and thus satisfied three criteria, AAO found it unnecessary to address additional eligibility claims relating to criterion (v).
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 +
Because the Petitioner met criterion (ix) and thus satisfied three criteria, AAO found it unnecessary to address additional eligibility claims relating to criterion (v).
AAO found the Director's rejection of the criterion was improperly based on the comparative data being 'unreadable.' Upon de novo review of the additional BLS data submitted on appeal, AAO concluded that the Petitioner's salary substantially exceeded the average for comparable California-based positions, establishing that he commanded a high salary in relation to others in 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 found the Director's rejection of the criterion was improperly based on the comparative data being 'unreadable.' Upon de novo review of the additional BLS data submitted on appeal, AAO concluded that the Petitioner's salary substantially exceeded the average for comparable California-based positions, establishing that he commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The letters did not address the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole; they spoke to personal and professional impact on individual authors rather than industry-wide contributions. One letter was from a journalist, and the Petitioner did not establish a journalist is an acceptable source under the regulation.
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 letters did not address the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole; they spoke to personal and professional impact on individual authors rather than industry-wide contributions. One letter was from a journalist, and the Petitioner did not establish a journalist is an acceptable source under the regulation.
The Petitioner presented essentially the same argument on appeal as before the Director without identifying any error, and did not explain or demonstrate that the Association of Cake Designers and Sugar Artists qualifies as a professional association. AAO concluded the issue was abandoned or waived.
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 presented essentially the same argument on appeal as before the Director without identifying any error, and did not explain or demonstrate that the Association of Cake Designers and Sugar Artists qualifies as a professional association. AAO concluded the issue was abandoned or waived.
salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
The new letter submitted on appeal lacked a properly certified English translation, reflected work as an administrator rather than as a bakery and pastry chef, and in any event could not be considered because it was not timely submitted before the denial. The Petitioner failed to carry her burden under this criterion.
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 new letter submitted on appeal lacked a properly certified English translation, reflected work as an administrator rather than as a bakery and pastry chef, and in any event could not be considered because it was not timely submitted before the denial. The Petitioner failed to carry her burden under this criterion.