The academic evaluation confirmed only a U.S. bachelor's degree equivalent. One employer letter covered experience prior to the degree, and the other showed only approximately three years and eleven months of post-baccalaureate experience — insufficient to satisfy the five-year requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
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 academic evaluation confirmed only a U.S. bachelor's degree equivalent. One employer letter covered experience prior to the degree, and the other showed only approximately three years and eleven months of post-baccalaureate experience — insufficient to satisfy the five-year requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
AAO agreed the record only contained generic descriptions of an international arbitration legal advisor's duties without a personal supporting statement, that counsel's assertions do not constitute evidence, and that evidence of the ADR field generally did not show the Petitioner's individual work would have national importance. AAO declined to consider the newly formed company as a material change to the proposed 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 the record only contained generic descriptions of an international arbitration legal advisor's duties without a personal supporting statement, that counsel's assertions do not constitute evidence, and that evidence of the ADR field generally did not show the Petitioner's individual work would have national importance. AAO declined to consider the newly formed company as a material change to the proposed endeavor.
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's determination that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding that the Petitioner provided no new evidence or arguments to overcome the Director's determination.
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's determination that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding that the Petitioner provided no new evidence or arguments to overcome the Director's determination.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's foreign credentials equate only to a U.S. high school diploma and that the credentials evaluator's opinion based on work experience rather than academic degrees is of little probative value.
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 the Petitioner's foreign credentials equate only to a U.S. high school diploma and that the credentials evaluator's opinion based on work experience rather than academic degrees is of little probative value.
The endeavor is meritorious but the record does not show broader implications for the architectural design field or substantial economic/societal effects beyond the Petitioner's business and clients; financial and staffing projections are insufficiently supported and the projected 15 jobs and $1.8M in payroll/taxes do not rise to 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 endeavor is meritorious but the record does not show broader implications for the architectural design field or substantial economic/societal effects beyond the Petitioner's business and clients; financial and staffing projections are insufficiently supported and the projected 15 jobs and $1.8M in payroll/taxes do not rise to national importance.
Architectural designer is not an occupation requiring a U.S. bachelor's degree (per O*NET 17-3011), and the credentials evaluation impermissibly combines two lesser educational credentials to construct a single bachelor's-degree equivalent.
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 +
Architectural designer is not an occupation requiring a U.S. bachelor's degree (per O*NET 17-3011), and the credentials evaluation impermissibly combines two lesser educational credentials to construct a single bachelor's-degree equivalent.
meet at least three exceptional ability evidentiary criteria
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision, noting the Petitioner failed to specifically challenge the Director's analysis of the disputed criteria and merely repeated his prior RFE response verbatim without new arguments or evidence.
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision, noting the Petitioner failed to specifically challenge the Director's analysis of the disputed criteria and merely repeated his prior RFE response verbatim without new arguments or evidence.
AAO found that evidence of attendance at various airline pilot training programs offered at flight schools, combined with training certificates, resume, flight logs, pilot licenses, and employer letters, was sufficient to meet the plain language of the degree criterion — which does not require a college or university 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 that evidence of attendance at various airline pilot training programs offered at flight schools, combined with training certificates, resume, flight logs, pilot licenses, and employer letters, was sufficient to meet the plain language of the degree criterion — which does not require a college or university degree.
AAO found that standard professional qualifications and performance of normal airline pilot duties do not demonstrate expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. The expert letter was conclusory and failed to document specific significant contributions to the field. Reference letters lacked corroborative evidence of impact or recognition outside the Petitioner's employers.
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 that standard professional qualifications and performance of normal airline pilot duties do not demonstrate expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. The expert letter was conclusory and failed to document specific significant contributions to the field. Reference letters lacked corroborative evidence of impact or recognition outside the Petitioner's employers.