The AAO found that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, the submitted evidence — including interest letters, employer and colleague letters, client letters, an expert opinion, and general industry articles — addressed only benefits to individual companies or the consulting industry broadly, without establishing specific broader implications for his field or national importance as required under Dhanasar.
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 AAO found that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, the submitted evidence — including interest letters, employer and colleague letters, client letters, an expert opinion, and general industry articles — addressed only benefits to individual companies or the consulting industry broadly, without establishing specific broader implications for his field or national importance as required under Dhanasar.
Five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience
AAO 为什么未被说服
Some of the Petitioner's claimed experience commenced before completion of her bachelor's degree, and her three years with the most recent employer began only six months before she filed the petition, so she has not demonstrated five years of post-baccalaureate experience at the time of filing.
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 +
Some of the Petitioner's claimed experience commenced before completion of her bachelor's degree, and her three years with the most recent employer began only six months before she filed the petition, so she has not demonstrated five years of post-baccalaureate experience at the time of filing.
AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor at a level of national importance. Reports on the software development industry did not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, and opinion letters and work experience evidence did not establish the endeavor would have economic effects at a national importance 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 evidence did not demonstrate broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor at a level of national importance. Reports on the software development industry did not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, and opinion letters and work experience evidence did not establish the endeavor would have economic effects at a national importance level.
AAO explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support sustained acclaim.
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 explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support sustained acclaim.
The Petitioner did not contest the Director's findings for this criterion on appeal or offer additional arguments, and AAO therefore deemed the claim abandoned.
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 contest the Director's findings for this criterion on appeal or offer additional arguments, and AAO therefore deemed the claim abandoned.
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner's failure to meet the minimum criteria threshold made it unnecessary to the outcome.
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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner's failure to meet the minimum criteria threshold made it unnecessary to the outcome.