AAO concluded that the personal statement, opinion letter, and industry articles all addressed the importance of business coaching generally rather than the specific potential impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. None of the evidence demonstrated how the Petitioner's approach differs from other coaching services, could be replicated through the field, or otherwise stands to have broad national impact.
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 personal statement, opinion letter, and industry articles all addressed the importance of business coaching generally rather than the specific potential impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. None of the evidence demonstrated how the Petitioner's approach differs from other coaching services, could be replicated through the field, or otherwise stands to have broad national impact.
Although a final merits determination was unnecessary given the threshold failure, AAO observed that the aggregate record did not establish a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered for an entrepreneur.
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 +
Although a final merits determination was unnecessary given the threshold failure, AAO observed that the aggregate record did not establish a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered for an entrepreneur.
license or certification for the profession or occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
Registration as a 'Technologist in Industrial Production' with a Brazilian regional body was not shown to constitute licensure or certification, and the Petitioner did not seek U.S. employment in that field, instead working in cleaning services and proposing to run a grocery store.
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 +
Registration as a 'Technologist in Industrial Production' with a Brazilian regional body was not shown to constitute licensure or certification, and the Petitioner did not seek U.S. employment in that field, instead working in cleaning services and proposing to run a grocery store.
ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's varied work experience did not constitute ten years in the occupation of an entrepreneur. His U.S. cleaning-service investment began only in 2016 (about five years before filing), and his Brazilian work was as a sector manager and customer service supervisor rather than as an owner/entrepreneur.
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 varied work experience did not constitute ten years in the occupation of an entrepreneur. His U.S. cleaning-service investment began only in 2016 (about five years before filing), and his Brazilian work was as a sector manager and customer service supervisor rather than as an owner/entrepreneur.
AAO agreed that the electronic signature did not constitute a valid signature. USCIS does not accept electronic or digitally produced signatures on paper-filed forms; only copies of forms bearing original handwritten signatures are acceptable. The image submitted on appeal depicted a signature dated after the director's decision and differed from the signature in the record, undermining the petitioner's credibility.
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 that the electronic signature did not constitute a valid signature. USCIS does not accept electronic or digitally produced signatures on paper-filed forms; only copies of forms bearing original handwritten signatures are acceptable. The image submitted on appeal depicted a signature dated after the director's decision and differed from the signature in the record, undermining the petitioner's credibility.
AAO found that while the international financial advisory field as a whole has substantial merit, the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor lacks national importance. He did not provide sufficient evidence that his work would impact the financial management field or U.S.…
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 international financial advisory field as a whole has substantial merit, the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor lacks national importance. He did not provide sufficient evidence that his work would impact the financial management field or U.S. economy beyond his clientele, did not support his $200 million asset management claim with documentation showing actual field-wide impact, and did not establish job creation or foreign direct investment attributable to his work at a nationally important magnitude.