AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner met the requirements under Dhanasar's second prong, as stated in the prior appeal decision incorporated by reference.
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 agreed with the Director that the Petitioner met the requirements under Dhanasar's second prong, as stated in the prior appeal decision incorporated by reference.
identification of intended area of employment under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5)
证据为何得到认可
AAO found the Petitioner's identification of his occupation sufficient and disagreed with the Director's interpretation that the listed activities were separate occupations.
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 Petitioner's identification of his occupation sufficient and disagreed with the Director's interpretation that the listed activities were separate occupations.
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's finding, agreeing that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit and affordable housing is nationally important, the evidence did not establish that his specific endeavor would have economic impact at a level commensurate with national importance, lacking projected job creation figures or economic impact data directly attributable to his 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 adopted and affirmed the Director's finding, agreeing that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit and affordable housing is nationally important, the evidence did not establish that his specific endeavor would have economic impact at a level commensurate with national importance, lacking projected job creation figures or economic impact data directly attributable to his work.
AAO agreed the submitted articles addressed the network security industry generally, not the Petitioner's specific consulting firm. The business proposals did not show the firm's services would differ significantly from existing offerings, offer replicable improvements, or broadly impact the industry.…
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 submitted articles addressed the network security industry generally, not the Petitioner's specific consulting firm. The business proposals did not show the firm's services would differ significantly from existing offerings, offer replicable improvements, or broadly impact the industry. Financial projections lacked credible basis and even if credible did not demonstrate the substantial positive economic effects contemplated under Dhanasar. AAO found substantial merit was established but national importance was not.
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's construction company endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance, finding that the Petitioner's appellate claims about affordable housing, sustainability, and indirect economic benefits were unsupported by specific plans, projections, or calculations.
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 Petitioner's construction company endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance, finding that the Petitioner's appellate claims about affordable housing, sustainability, and indirect economic benefits were unsupported by specific plans, projections, or calculations.
AAO agreed that the endeavor has substantial merit in business and entrepreneurialism but found it lacks national importance. Revenue and job creation projections were unsubstantiated conjecture, the expert opinion focused on the industry rather than the specific endeavor, and the HUBZone location was not confirmed and would not alone establish national importance even if confirmed.
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 endeavor has substantial merit in business and entrepreneurialism but found it lacks national importance. Revenue and job creation projections were unsubstantiated conjecture, the expert opinion focused on the industry rather than the specific endeavor, and the HUBZone location was not confirmed and would not alone establish national importance even if confirmed.
AAO found that the Petitioner's arguments addressed the substantial merit of the endeavor but not its national importance; operating a small business would not nationally impact the cargo and freight industry or benefit the regional or national economy at the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar.
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 the Petitioner's arguments addressed the substantial merit of the endeavor but not its national importance; operating a small business would not nationally impact the cargo and freight industry or benefit the regional or national economy at the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar.
AAO explicitly reserved judgment on the second prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the national importance of his endeavor under prong one, making resolution of prong two unnecessary.
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 explicitly reserved judgment on the second prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the national importance of his endeavor under prong one, making resolution of prong two unnecessary.
AAO explicitly reserved judgment on the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the national importance of his endeavor under prong one, making resolution of prong three unnecessary.
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 explicitly reserved judgment on the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the national importance of his endeavor under prong one, making resolution of prong three unnecessary.
AAO found the Director's language tracked Dhanasar's plain language (and quoted the exact Dhanasar phrasing in the same sentence as the language objected to), declined to credit the recommendation letter due to a signature that appeared to be an inserted low-resolution image, and held that STEM status does not alter the national-importance inquiry, which focuses on the specific proposed 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 found the Director's language tracked Dhanasar's plain language (and quoted the exact Dhanasar phrasing in the same sentence as the language objected to), declined to credit the recommendation letter due to a signature that appeared to be an inserted low-resolution image, and held that STEM status does not alter the national-importance inquiry, which focuses on the specific proposed endeavor.