recognition for achievements and significant contributions (k)(3)(ii)(F)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO held the resubmitted letters mainly described contributions to specific employers and projects, not significant contributions to the industry or field, and did not constitute new facts.
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 held the resubmitted letters mainly described contributions to specific employers and projects, not significant contributions to the industry or field, and did not constitute new facts.
AAO held the supplemental statement did not show the Petitioner's actual salary or that the IT salary report provided a sufficient basis for comparison to his occupation.
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 held the supplemental statement did not show the Petitioner's actual salary or that the IT salary report provided a sufficient basis for comparison to his occupation.
AAO declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold criteria count, but noted in dicta the record does not support the required acclaim.
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 declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold criteria count, but noted in dicta the record does not support the required acclaim.
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the Petitioner's role as an acceptance review expert for three national railway projects was sufficient to satisfy the judging criterion.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the Petitioner's role as an acceptance review expert for three national railway projects was sufficient to satisfy the judging criterion.
AAO agrees substantial merit is shown but the evidence — articles not specific to tax/accounting (some dated or based on Belgian enterprises), an undated report, a general expert opinion — does not establish prospective national or global implications of the Petitioner's 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 agrees substantial merit is shown but the evidence — articles not specific to tax/accounting (some dated or based on Belgian enterprises), an undated report, a general expert opinion — does not establish prospective national or global implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.
at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the letter from one employer did not indicate the work was full-time, and the ETA 750 Part B self-attestation cannot substitute for the regulatory requirement of letters from current or former employers showing full-time experience. The Petitioner's ETA 750 Part B was already in the record at the time of filing, not new evidence.
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 that the letter from one employer did not indicate the work was full-time, and the ETA 750 Part B self-attestation cannot substitute for the regulatory requirement of letters from current or former employers showing full-time experience. The Petitioner's ETA 750 Part B was already in the record at the time of filing, not new evidence.