The Petitioner did not address on appeal his failure to explain how the letters correspond to any individual criterion, and his blanket assertion that several criteria don't apply is a general unsupported claim not allowed under USCIS policy. General claims that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are also not persuasive under the Policy Manual.
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 address on appeal his failure to explain how the letters correspond to any individual criterion, and his blanket assertion that several criteria don't apply is a general unsupported claim not allowed under USCIS policy. General claims that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are also not persuasive under the Policy Manual.
AAO found the credential evaluation insufficient because it did not explain why the Brazilian degree equates to a U.S. bachelor's, and the record did not show how many years of study were completed. Consulting EDGE, AAO noted some Brazilian bachelor's degrees involve only three years of study, which would not meet the U.S. bachelor's equivalency standard.
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 credential evaluation insufficient because it did not explain why the Brazilian degree equates to a U.S. bachelor's, and the record did not show how many years of study were completed. Consulting EDGE, AAO noted some Brazilian bachelor's degrees involve only three years of study, which would not meet the U.S. bachelor's equivalency standard.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit (potential revenues, job creation, empowerment of women and minorities) but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Projected revenues of $687K and six employees after five years would not substantially boost the national economy, and focusing on the broader personal styling market rather than the particular venture was insufficient.…
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 has substantial merit (potential revenues, job creation, empowerment of women and minorities) but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Projected revenues of $687K and six employees after five years would not substantially boost the national economy, and focusing on the broader personal styling market rather than the particular venture was insufficient. The Petitioner's method was praised by a handful of peers but the record did not establish it represented an advancement in the fashion field.
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found the record did not show prospective broader implications. The business plan projected only 15 total workers in an unspecified location, which is minimal and inconsistent with significant national economic impact, and no evidence showed how the bilingual model was novel or had implications comparable to manufacturing or medical advances.
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 has substantial merit but found the record did not show prospective broader implications. The business plan projected only 15 total workers in an unspecified location, which is minimal and inconsistent with significant national economic impact, and no evidence showed how the bilingual model was novel or had implications comparable to manufacturing or medical advances.
AAO reserved criterion (v) because even if decided in the Petitioner's favor it could not change the outcome, as the Petitioner failed two other criteria and abandoned a fourth, making it impossible to reach three satisfied criteria.
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 +
AAO reserved criterion (v) because even if decided in the Petitioner's favor it could not change the outcome, as the Petitioner failed two other criteria and abandoned a fourth, making it impossible to reach three satisfied criteria.
The Petitioner identified evidence but failed to explain how or why it satisfied the plain language of the regulation, falling short of meeting the burden of proof.
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 identified evidence but failed to explain how or why it satisfied the plain language of the regulation, falling short of meeting the burden of proof.
The Petitioner's appellate argument was only a generalized statement without explaining specific errors, amounting to a waiver of the issue on appeal. Additionally, post-filing awards (April, May, October 2023) cannot be considered in a petition filed in March 2023.
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's appellate argument was only a generalized statement without explaining specific errors, amounting to a waiver of the issue on appeal. Additionally, post-filing awards (April, May, October 2023) cannot be considered in a petition filed in March 2023.
whether petitioner's field falls within statutory fields of sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics
裁决如何说明
AAO disagreed with the Director's categorical exclusion, finding lawyers are not automatically barred and that the available evidence suggests the Petitioner's field falls within 'business.' AAO remands for the Director to reevaluate the field-of-endeavor question.
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 disagreed with the Director's categorical exclusion, finding lawyers are not automatically barred and that the available evidence suggests the Petitioner's field falls within 'business.' AAO remands for the Director to reevaluate the field-of-endeavor question.