AAO found that the record supported substantial merit for the endeavor but not national importance. The expert opinion letter conflated the national importance of the dental field generally with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed work.…
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 the record supported substantial merit for the endeavor but not national importance. The expert opinion letter conflated the national importance of the dental field generally with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed work. The Petitioner did not show that her proposed endeavor's prospective impact extends sufficiently beyond her company and its business partners to affect her field, public health, or the national economy at the level of national importance, and she did not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects.
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found national importance not established. The four expert opinion letters discussed the HR consulting industry generally rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor, were substantially similar to one another, and provided little probative value.…
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 has substantial merit but found national importance not established. The four expert opinion letters discussed the HR consulting industry generally rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor, were substantially similar to one another, and provided little probative value. The business plan's financial projections lacked supporting methodology and the creation of 29 jobs would not rise to national importance. AAO agreed with the Director's analogy to Dhanasar, where teaching activities did not extend beyond individual students to impact the field more broadly.
AAO agreed with the Director that the record contained discrepancies in the Petitioner's monthly salary (230,000 vs 207,000 rubles) and lacked objective comparative evidence. The Rosstat data covered development directors, a position the Petitioner did not show is comparable to chief executive, and Petitioner did not provide comparative bonus data.
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 with the Director that the record contained discrepancies in the Petitioner's monthly salary (230,000 vs 207,000 rubles) and lacked objective comparative evidence. The Rosstat data covered development directors, a position the Petitioner did not show is comparable to chief executive, and Petitioner did not provide comparative bonus data.
AAO agreed that the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession but rather the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the petitioner proposes. The evidence demonstrated Petitioner is an experienced engineer who intends to open a consulting business, but did not demonstrate broad impact on the field or substantial positive economic effects beyond his own clients.
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 relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession but rather the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the petitioner proposes. The evidence demonstrated Petitioner is an experienced engineer who intends to open a consulting business, but did not demonstrate broad impact on the field or substantial positive economic effects beyond his own clients.
AAO explicitly reserved judgment on the second prong because the Petitioner's failure to establish national importance under the first prong renders the petition ineligible, making further analysis unnecessary under Bagamasbad.
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 explicitly reserved judgment on the second prong because the Petitioner's failure to establish national importance under the first prong renders the petition ineligible, making further analysis unnecessary under Bagamasbad.
AAO found the client reference letters do not qualify as employer letters under the regulations, and the record otherwise lacked corroborating documentation (business registration, invoices, contracts, tax returns) to establish consistent and regular self-employment experience. No employer letter was provided for the 2009–2012 period either.
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 client reference letters do not qualify as employer letters under the regulations, and the record otherwise lacked corroborating documentation (business registration, invoices, contracts, tax returns) to establish consistent and regular self-employment experience. No employer letter was provided for the 2009–2012 period either.