AAO concurs with the Director that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. The evidence focused on the importance of the industry generally rather than the specific prospective impact of her endeavor beyond her employer and its clients.
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 concurs with the Director that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. The evidence focused on the importance of the industry generally rather than the specific prospective impact of her endeavor beyond her employer and its clients.
AAO concluded that the initial proposed endeavor (legal professional/lawyer) was described only in vague and generic terms, failing to establish substantial merit of the specific endeavor.…
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 that the initial proposed endeavor (legal professional/lawyer) was described only in vague and generic terms, failing to establish substantial merit of the specific endeavor. AAO further found that the national importance requirement was not met because the Petitioner did not explain how her individual legal work would produce broader economic impacts beyond her employers or clients, and the record lacked evidence of prospective national-level impact. The RFE-response endeavor was disregarded as a material change.
AAO concluded the work-experience certificate (2014–2016 administrator role) predated her 2022 bachelor's degree and so cannot count toward the five-year progressive-experience requirement.
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 concluded the work-experience certificate (2014–2016 administrator role) predated her 2022 bachelor's degree and so cannot count toward the five-year progressive-experience requirement.
AAO found the evidence showed only generalized industry/issue importance and did not demonstrate broader regional or national impact from the Petitioner's specific endeavor of running a church, food bank, and recovery center.
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 showed only generalized industry/issue importance and did not demonstrate broader regional or national impact from the Petitioner's specific endeavor of running a church, food bank, and recovery center.
The submitted evidence does not constitute new facts; the petitioner's own evidence acknowledges the talent shortage is not new, and the subsequently approved I-140 is not part of the record under review.
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 submitted evidence does not constitute new facts; the petitioner's own evidence acknowledges the talent shortage is not new, and the subsequently approved I-140 is not part of the record under review.
AAO agreed with the Director that the endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. The business plan's projections were unsupported by independent corroborating evidence, the expert opinion merely restated business plan information, the claimed job creation and economic benefits did not rise to national importance, and working in an important industry alone is 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 with the Director that the endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. The business plan's projections were unsupported by independent corroborating evidence, the expert opinion merely restated business plan information, the claimed job creation and economic benefits did not rise to national importance, and working in an important industry alone is insufficient. Broader field implications were not demonstrated.
AAO agreed that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, he failed to show its prospective impact rises to national importance—his company's projected staffing and revenue do not demonstrate substantial economic benefits at the regional or national level, and his claims of broader industry impact were unsupported by sufficient evidence.
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 while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, he failed to show its prospective impact rises to national importance—his company's projected staffing and revenue do not demonstrate substantial economic benefits at the regional or national level, and his claims of broader industry impact were unsupported by sufficient evidence.
AAO found that, while the Petitioner's endeavor is in an area of substantial merit, she did not demonstrate broader implications in the marketing field or wide-reaching economic impact commensurate with national importance. The new evidence on motion did not change this conclusion.
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 that, while the Petitioner's endeavor is in an area of substantial merit, she did not demonstrate broader implications in the marketing field or wide-reaching economic impact commensurate with national importance. The new evidence on motion did not change this conclusion.
membership in professional associations (criterion E)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found the Petitioner's memberships in PAEI, ABRACO, CECIEx, and APEX-Brazil did not qualify as membership in 'professional' associations because the evidence did not demonstrate those organizations require members to hold a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its equivalent. On motion, the Petitioner merely reasserted prior contentions without addressing the AAO's specific reasoning.
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 AAO found the Petitioner's memberships in PAEI, ABRACO, CECIEx, and APEX-Brazil did not qualify as membership in 'professional' associations because the evidence did not demonstrate those organizations require members to hold a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its equivalent. On motion, the Petitioner merely reasserted prior contentions without addressing the AAO's specific reasoning.