The evidence does not show that union membership requires at least a baccalaureate degree, and the union relates to radio broadcasting rather than Petitioner's claimed 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 +
The evidence does not show that union membership requires at least a baccalaureate degree, and the union relates to radio broadcasting rather than Petitioner's claimed occupations.
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
Multiple employer letters were discounted for various reasons: some postdated the filing date, one was written by the Petitioner herself on former employer letterhead, one contradicted the ETA-750, one described a company whose business contradicted the Petitioner's characterization, and teaching experience was not in her specialty.…
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 +
Multiple employer letters were discounted for various reasons: some postdated the filing date, one was written by the Petitioner herself on former employer letterhead, one contradicted the ETA-750, one described a company whose business contradicted the Petitioner's characterization, and teaching experience was not in her specialty. The only qualifying letters covered under three years and five months, well short of the five-year requirement.
salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner failed to provide documentary support for the claimed U.S. average salary, did not supply comparable data for Brazil, and the accountant letter was not sufficiently clear to establish that the amounts reflected the Petitioner's personal earnings rather than business revenue.
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 failed to provide documentary support for the claimed U.S. average salary, did not supply comparable data for Brazil, and the accountant letter was not sufficiently clear to establish that the amounts reflected the Petitioner's personal earnings rather than business revenue.
The Petitioner made additional statements on appeal without documentary support and still did not establish the requirements for membership in the association.
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 made additional statements on appeal without documentary support and still did not establish the requirements for membership in the association.
AAO agreed that the endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. The evidence pertained to the architecture field generally, not the Petitioner's specific endeavor; the business plan's small scale (two part-time employees, $150,000 revenue) did not demonstrate broader national implications; and the evidence did not show that the Petitioner's skills differed from or improved upon those already available in the…
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 but not national importance. The evidence pertained to the architecture field generally, not the Petitioner's specific endeavor; the business plan's small scale (two part-time employees, $150,000 revenue) did not demonstrate broader national implications; and the evidence did not show that the Petitioner's skills differed from or improved upon those already available in the United States.
AAO agreed that while substantial merit was established, the Petitioner did not demonstrate national importance. The proposed endeavor's impact appeared limited to prospective clients and a local Florida area, without broader implications for the industry, field, or U.S. economy.…
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 substantial merit was established, the Petitioner did not demonstrate national importance. The proposed endeavor's impact appeared limited to prospective clients and a local Florida area, without broader implications for the industry, field, or U.S. economy. Personal statements referencing aggregate industry figures did not show how the Petitioner's particular endeavor would substantially benefit the real estate sector.
AAO found that newly submitted lesson plans and outlines describing kindergarten students using VR glasses to hear songs and watch videos were not probative, credible evidence of broad educational impact. Prior unsubstantiated claims about the product being 'unique and innovative' and nationally beneficial remained unsubstantiated. Screenshots related to a different prior project and were irrelevant.…
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 newly submitted lesson plans and outlines describing kindergarten students using VR glasses to hear songs and watch videos were not probative, credible evidence of broad educational impact. Prior unsubstantiated claims about the product being 'unique and innovative' and nationally beneficial remained unsubstantiated. Screenshots related to a different prior project and were irrelevant. The business plan confirmed the product had not yet been created.
AAO declined to reach the second prong because prong one remained dispositive and the Petitioner did not overcome the basis for dismissal on prong one.
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 declined to reach the second prong because prong one remained dispositive and the Petitioner did not overcome the basis for dismissal on prong one.