AAO agreed with the Director's ultimate conclusion that the record appears not to demonstrate substantial merit and national importance, but disagreed with the underlying analysis. AAO found the Director incorrectly treated the Petitioner's submissions as vague when the Petitioner's own statements and business plan clearly described a specific endeavor. The first-prong issue is remanded for a proper 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 +
AAO agreed with the Director's ultimate conclusion that the record appears not to demonstrate substantial merit and national importance, but disagreed with the underlying analysis. AAO found the Director incorrectly treated the Petitioner's submissions as vague when the Petitioner's own statements and business plan clearly described a specific endeavor. The first-prong issue is remanded for a proper analysis.
beneficiary's qualifying experience per labor certification
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Beneficiary's job duty descriptions on the 2010 visa application conflicted with employer letters, the affidavits from purported co-workers were unreliable and unavailability of employer letters was not shown, and the new evidence on motion did not establish qualifying experience or misapplication of law.
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 Beneficiary's job duty descriptions on the 2010 visa application conflicted with employer letters, the affidavits from purported co-workers were unreliable and unavailability of employer letters was not shown, and the new evidence on motion did not establish qualifying experience or misapplication of law.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions criterion (F)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that supervisors' letters described work for their companies but did not establish recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field, and that professors' advisory opinions discussed credentials and experience without showing recognition beyond the Beneficiary's employers and their specific projects.
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 supervisors' letters described work for their companies but did not establish recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field, and that professors' advisory opinions discussed credentials and experience without showing recognition beyond the Beneficiary's employers and their specific projects.
The AAO found that the record failed to show how the Petitioner's management consulting firm would impact the economy or the legal/tax advisory industry beyond her own clients. The expert letter addressed the importance of entrepreneurship generally rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor, counsel's assertions were not substantiated by independent evidence, and the business plan's projections lacked sourcing and corr…
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 AAO found that the record failed to show how the Petitioner's management consulting firm would impact the economy or the legal/tax advisory industry beyond her own clients. The expert letter addressed the importance of entrepreneurship generally rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor, counsel's assertions were not substantiated by independent evidence, and the business plan's projections lacked sourcing and corroborating evidence.