AAO found the Petitioner did not show how his consulting business would have broader national-level impact beyond individual clients. The submitted articles addressed the field generally rather than the specific endeavor's prospective national 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 found the Petitioner did not show how his consulting business would have broader national-level impact beyond individual clients. The submitted articles addressed the field generally rather than the specific endeavor's prospective national impact. The business plan's projections of 10 employees and modest sales figures did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at the national level, and the Petitioner's generalized assertions were unsupported by probative evidence.
AAO found that the Petitioner's generalized statements, articles discussing logistics and CFO roles broadly, government reports unrelated to her specific endeavor, an unexplained personal statement conflating field importance with endeavor importance, and two expert letters that similarly conflated field importance with the specific endeavor's importance all failed to show how her CFO role at one consulting company would ha…
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 generalized statements, articles discussing logistics and CFO roles broadly, government reports unrelated to her specific endeavor, an unexplained personal statement conflating field importance with endeavor importance, and two expert letters that similarly conflated field importance with the specific endeavor's importance all failed to show how her CFO role at one consulting company would have nationally important broader implications. The unsupported business plan projecting only 13 jobs and $120,905 net profit by year five also failed to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at a national level.
The new letter still provided only job title and dates of employment, not duty descriptions, which are required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). The recommendation letters on motion addressed only the Petitioner's current role and general demeanor.
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 still provided only job title and dates of employment, not duty descriptions, which are required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). The recommendation letters on motion addressed only the Petitioner's current role and general demeanor.
The record does not sufficiently link the Petitioner's educational credential in media arts with general management duties. The new recommendation letters do not detail his prior work history, industry recognition, or significant contributions to management.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The record does not sufficiently link the Petitioner's educational credential in media arts with general management duties. The new recommendation letters do not detail his prior work history, industry recognition, or significant contributions to management.
AAO's prior appeal decision focused on national importance (prong 1) and the EB-2 threshold issue; the motion decision does not separately address prong 2 beyond recounting the Director's denial grounds.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO's prior appeal decision focused on national importance (prong 1) and the EB-2 threshold issue; the motion decision does not separately address prong 2 beyond recounting the Director's denial grounds.
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO withdrew the Director's finding on appeal, holding the evidence was insufficient to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. On motion, the Petitioner's resubmitted letter was already evaluated on appeal and found deficient; the letter author's objectivity and knowledge of post-departure work history were questioned, and the claims were uncorroborated. Pre-2007 work experience is irrelevant.
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 withdrew the Director's finding on appeal, holding the evidence was insufficient to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. On motion, the Petitioner's resubmitted letter was already evaluated on appeal and found deficient; the letter author's objectivity and knowledge of post-departure work history were questioned, and the claims were uncorroborated. Pre-2007 work experience is irrelevant.