The Petitioner's endeavor appeared limited to his own company and its clients and did not demonstrate impact on the broader IT consulting field or national-level societal welfare. No significant potential to employ U.S. workers or produce substantial positive economic benefits was shown.
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 +
The Petitioner's endeavor appeared limited to his own company and its clients and did not demonstrate impact on the broader IT consulting field or national-level societal welfare. No significant potential to employ U.S. workers or produce substantial positive economic benefits was shown.
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. The petitioner's plans to franchise and offer telemedicine would expand her business and client base but did not demonstrate broader impact on the home health care field. Proposed research lacked supporting evidence and detailed plans. Claims about serving underserved populations were too general.…
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 proposed endeavor lacked national importance. The petitioner's plans to franchise and offer telemedicine would expand her business and client base but did not demonstrate broader impact on the home health care field. Proposed research lacked supporting evidence and detailed plans. Claims about serving underserved populations were too general. The petitioner improperly relied on the importance of the industry rather than the specific impact of her own endeavor.
AAO agreed that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not demonstrate national importance. The Petitioner's proposed one-on-one work lacks the broader field implications, projected economic impact, or connection to national initiatives required under Dhanasar. Expert letters focused on qualifications and the field generally, not on the specific proposed endeavor's prospective 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 agreed that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not demonstrate national importance. The Petitioner's proposed one-on-one work lacks the broader field implications, projected economic impact, or connection to national initiatives required under Dhanasar. Expert letters focused on qualifications and the field generally, not on the specific proposed endeavor's prospective impact.
AAO found EDGE does not equate the lato sensu certificate to a U.S. master's degree; rather, EDGE indicates lato sensu programs lead to professional certificates, not graduate degrees.
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 EDGE does not equate the lato sensu certificate to a U.S. master's degree; rather, EDGE indicates lato sensu programs lead to professional certificates, not graduate degrees.
The post-filing membership evidence is excluded under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The pre-filing association membership requires running a business but does not require a baccalaureate degree, so the association does not qualify as 'professional' under the regulatory definition.
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 post-filing membership evidence is excluded under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The pre-filing association membership requires running a business but does not require a baccalaureate degree, so the association does not qualify as 'professional' under the regulatory definition.