AAO agreed that Matter of Shah requires a four-year baccalaureate degree. The Petitioner failed to address or challenge the Shah decision on appeal, effectively waiving the argument.
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 that Matter of Shah requires a four-year baccalaureate degree. The Petitioner failed to address or challenge the Shah decision on appeal, effectively waiving the argument.
AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found that asset/project management services for individual SMB clients did not extend beyond those clients to impact the field or U.S. economy more broadly. The professor's opinion letter and industry reports did not specifically address the Petitioner's endeavor or its broader implications, and the business plan's job/revenue projections were unsupported.
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 agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found that asset/project management services for individual SMB clients did not extend beyond those clients to impact the field or U.S. economy more broadly. The professor's opinion letter and industry reports did not specifically address the Petitioner's endeavor or its broader implications, and the business plan's job/revenue projections were unsupported.
AAO found the experience-based arguments more relevant to prong 2, and held that vague claims about addressing pilot shortages and attracting global students did not demonstrate national importance for an individual flight instructor's work.
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 experience-based arguments more relevant to prong 2, and held that vague claims about addressing pilot shortages and attracting global students did not demonstrate national importance for an individual flight instructor's work.
AAO agreed with the Director. The co-owner letter did not state the Petitioner worked full time or attained 10 years of experience. The Petitioner abandoned her arguments about the client letter on appeal by failing to address it.
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 with the Director. The co-owner letter did not state the Petitioner worked full time or attained 10 years of experience. The Petitioner abandoned her arguments about the client letter on appeal by failing to address it.
Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field (criterion F)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director. The letters contained general praise for the Petitioner's expertise but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 'the industry or field' as required.…
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 with the Director. The letters contained general praise for the Petitioner's expertise but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 'the industry or field' as required. The co-owner's letter only described benefits to their company and projects, and the client letter focused on the company and the client's own projects rather than the Petitioner's specific impact on the field.
AAO agreed with the Director. The co-owner's statements were unsupported and subjective. The Petitioner failed to overcome the Director's conclusion about bank statements on appeal, waiving that argument. The salary statistics were unreliable (unclear source, referred to 'designers' generally rather than interior designers), and the Petitioner compared herself to employees rather than co-owners of interior design businesses.
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 with the Director. The co-owner's statements were unsupported and subjective. The Petitioner failed to overcome the Director's conclusion about bank statements on appeal, waiving that argument. The salary statistics were unreliable (unclear source, referred to 'designers' generally rather than interior designers), and the Petitioner compared herself to employees rather than co-owners of interior design businesses.
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director that the co-owner's letter lacked a specific description of duties and did not establish full-time work for at least five years. The client letter described the company's work rather than the Petitioner's individual duties, and was from a client rather than an employer or trainer as required.
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 with the Director that the co-owner's letter lacked a specific description of duties and did not establish full-time work for at least five years. The client letter described the company's work rather than the Petitioner's individual duties, and was from a client rather than an employer or trainer as required.