The AAO found the record lacked transcripts to verify the 2013 degree was earned after four years of undergraduate study equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The credentials evaluation report was internally inconsistent with the expert opinion letter, and there was no evidence that 26 credit hours equals a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree.…
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 AAO found the record lacked transcripts to verify the 2013 degree was earned after four years of undergraduate study equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The credentials evaluation report was internally inconsistent with the expert opinion letter, and there was no evidence that 26 credit hours equals a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. If the 2018 degree represented the bachelor's equivalent, five years of post-baccalaureate experience could not have been accumulated before the October 2021 filing date.
AAO reserved this prong as unnecessary to the disposition, given the dispositive failure on prong 1, though it noted in a footnote that it would disagree with the director's finding based on deficiencies in the claimed experience.
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 reserved this prong as unnecessary to the disposition, given the dispositive failure on prong 1, though it noted in a footnote that it would disagree with the director's finding based on deficiencies in the claimed experience.
The Director's favorable finding was based on an entrepreneurial endeavor introduced only in the RFE response, which was a material change from the original petition. Because a petitioner may not make material changes to cure a deficient petition, the altered endeavor should not have formed the basis of the NIW analysis.
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 Director's favorable finding was based on an entrepreneurial endeavor introduced only in the RFE response, which was a material change from the original petition. Because a petitioner may not make material changes to cure a deficient petition, the altered endeavor should not have formed the basis of the NIW analysis.
AAO agreed with the Director that national importance was not established. The personal statement and sample program at most show benefit to the Petitioner's clients without broader field implications. Expert opinion letters conflate the importance of physical fitness generally with the national importance 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 agreed with the Director that national importance was not established. The personal statement and sample program at most show benefit to the Petitioner's clients without broader field implications. Expert opinion letters conflate the importance of physical fitness generally with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Research articles similarly address physical fitness in general rather than the proposed endeavor specifically.
AAO found the credential evaluation unreliable because it misstates the duration of coursework completed, does not address credit hour requirements or typical program length, and transcripts suggest only 3.5 years of coursework rather than the requisite 4 years. AACRAO EDGE indicates Brazilian teaching degrees vary from 2 to 4 years, with only a 4-year program being equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.
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 credential evaluation unreliable because it misstates the duration of coursework completed, does not address credit hour requirements or typical program length, and transcripts suggest only 3.5 years of coursework rather than the requisite 4 years. AACRAO EDGE indicates Brazilian teaching degrees vary from 2 to 4 years, with only a 4-year program being equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.
The Petitioner failed to define a specific proposed endeavor, did not show how working as a commercial pilot has substantial merit in any Dhanasar-listed area, and did not show the endeavor would impact the field or U.S. economy beyond his prospective employer. A claimed occupational shortage does not establish national importance.
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 failed to define a specific proposed endeavor, did not show how working as a commercial pilot has substantial merit in any Dhanasar-listed area, and did not show the endeavor would impact the field or U.S. economy beyond his prospective employer. A claimed occupational shortage does not establish national importance.