The Petitioner did not challenge the Director's EB-2 denial on appeal, addressing only the NIW prongs. AAO held this constitutes a waiver/abandonment of the issue under Matter of Pougatchev.
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 challenge the Director's EB-2 denial on appeal, addressing only the NIW prongs. AAO held this constitutes a waiver/abandonment of the issue under Matter of Pougatchev.
AAO noted the Director's internally contradictory treatment of prong 2 (RFE vs. denial decision) but did not resolve the prong, remanding for a coherent analysis.
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 noted the Director's internally contradictory treatment of prong 2 (RFE vs. denial decision) but did not resolve the prong, remanding for a coherent analysis.
AAO noted the Director found substantial merit (with which AAO agreed), but found the Director's national importance analysis was incoherent—mixing in third-prong and second-prong considerations—and failed to explain the basis for the national importance denial. AAO remanded without reaching a conclusion on this prong.
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 noted the Director found substantial merit (with which AAO agreed), but found the Director's national importance analysis was incoherent—mixing in third-prong and second-prong considerations—and failed to explain the basis for the national importance denial. AAO remanded without reaching a conclusion on this prong.
AAO reserves this prong under Bagamasbad because prong 2 is dispositive, while noting significant doubts about whether the proposed endeavor was expressed consistently.
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 reserves this prong under Bagamasbad because prong 2 is dispositive, while noting significant doubts about whether the proposed endeavor was expressed consistently.
AAO did not disturb the Director's favorable finding on this prong and noted that evidence of being well positioned does not establish national importance.
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 did not disturb the Director's favorable finding on this prong and noted that evidence of being well positioned does not establish national importance.
At least three of six exceptional ability criteria (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii))
证据为何得到认可
AAO found the Director erred in denying criterion C (license or certification) because the Petitioner had provided such documentation with his initial filing, thus the Petitioner satisfied at least three criteria.
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 Director erred in denying criterion C (license or certification) because the Petitioner had provided such documentation with his initial filing, thus the Petitioner satisfied at least three criteria.
Advanced degree or equivalent (bachelor's + 5 years post-baccalaureate progressive experience)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish the required post-baccalaureate experience. The business plan was not probative evidence under the regulation; the credentials evaluation relied on the Petitioner's resume rather than proper employer letters; and post-filing experience cannot be counted.
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 the Petitioner failed to establish the required post-baccalaureate experience. The business plan was not probative evidence under the regulation; the credentials evaluation relied on the Petitioner's resume rather than proper employer letters; and post-filing experience cannot be counted.