AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to show national importance, finding that industry-level articles do not establish the specific endeavor's national importance, that the Petitioner did not describe the 'novel' projects or demonstrate how his methodologies differ from existing ones, and that the business plan's employment and revenue projections were insufficiently substantiated and too limited in scale to rise to national i…
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 Petitioner failed to show national importance, finding that industry-level articles do not establish the specific endeavor's national importance, that the Petitioner did not describe the 'novel' projects or demonstrate how his methodologies differ from existing ones, and that the business plan's employment and revenue projections were insufficiently substantiated and too limited in scale to rise to national importance.
AAO concluded the evidence established the importance of the field of sustainable architecture rather than the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor; job-creation claims appeared first on appeal, lacked evidentiary basis, and 13 jobs in 5 years were not shown to rise 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 concluded the evidence established the importance of the field of sustainable architecture rather than the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor; job-creation claims appeared first on appeal, lacked evidentiary basis, and 13 jobs in 5 years were not shown to rise to national importance.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's reliance on the general importance of the aviation industry and the pilot shortage does not establish national importance of his specific endeavor. The expert opinion was of little probative value as it did not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not shown the endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of 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 agreed that the Petitioner's reliance on the general importance of the aviation industry and the pilot shortage does not establish national importance of his specific endeavor. The expert opinion was of little probative value as it did not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not shown the endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of national importance.
New evidence submitted on motion postdated the petition filing date and therefore could not be considered; remaining evidence still did not establish the extent to which the endeavor would provide jobs and boost the local economy, failing to remedy the national importance deficiency identified in the prior appellate dismissal.
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 +
New evidence submitted on motion postdated the petition filing date and therefore could not be considered; remaining evidence still did not establish the extent to which the endeavor would provide jobs and boost the local economy, failing to remedy the national importance deficiency identified in the prior appellate dismissal.
AAO found the Director's analysis conclusory and unsupported, and directed the Director on remand to consider the Petitioner's evidence regarding global food scarcity, climate change, and commercial interest.
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 Director's analysis conclusory and unsupported, and directed the Director on remand to consider the Petitioner's evidence regarding global food scarcity, climate change, and commercial interest.
AAO directed that on remand, if prongs one and two are met, the Director must analyze prong three under USCIS STEM policy, which treats an advanced STEM degree (especially a Ph.D.) combined with work in a critical/emerging technology or STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness as a strong positive factor.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO directed that on remand, if prongs one and two are met, the Director must analyze prong three under USCIS STEM policy, which treats an advanced STEM degree (especially a Ph.D.) combined with work in a critical/emerging technology or STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness as a strong positive factor.
AAO found the Director failed to consider the USCIS STEM policy applicable to advanced STEM degree holders and failed to consider the Petitioner's USDA grant, institutional affiliations, and citation history. AAO remanded for reconsideration.
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 found the Director failed to consider the USCIS STEM policy applicable to advanced STEM degree holders and failed to consider the Petitioner's USDA grant, institutional affiliations, and citation history. AAO remanded for reconsideration.
The accountant's statement related to company revenues rather than the Petitioner's personal salary or remuneration, and the record lacked evidence that the company's revenues constituted the Petitioner's personal compensation for his services as a barber or instructor.
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 accountant's statement related to company revenues rather than the Petitioner's personal salary or remuneration, and the record lacked evidence that the company's revenues constituted the Petitioner's personal compensation for his services as a barber or instructor.