Ten years of full-time experience (employer letters)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO withdrew the Director's finding because neither of the employer letters stated that the Petitioner was employed on a full-time basis, and the record showed he was simultaneously working for multiple companies, undermining any inference of full-time work for any single employer.
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 withdrew the Director's finding because neither of the employer letters stated that the Petitioner was employed on a full-time basis, and the record showed he was simultaneously working for multiple companies, undermining any inference of full-time work for any single employer.
The AAO held that the 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) definition of 'profession' applies throughout the entire section, including to the professional association criterion, and that the Petitioner's organizations are open to anyone interested in their purposes and do not restrict membership to professionals.
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 held that the 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) definition of 'profession' applies throughout the entire section, including to the professional association criterion, and that the Petitioner's organizations are open to anyone interested in their purposes and do not restrict membership to professionals.
Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found that the letters and documentation showed the Petitioner's contributions to individual companies but failed to establish the significance of those contributions to the import/export field or industry as a whole. The AAO also noted that complimentary letters about the Petitioner's skills speak to a final merits determination rather than to recognized achievements and contributions under this criterion.
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 that the letters and documentation showed the Petitioner's contributions to individual companies but failed to establish the significance of those contributions to the import/export field or industry as a whole. The AAO also noted that complimentary letters about the Petitioner's skills speak to a final merits determination rather than to recognized achievements and contributions under this criterion.
AAO did not address the first prong on its merits, instead remanding all Dhanasar analysis to the Director because the threshold EB-2 qualification issue was not properly resolved.
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 did not address the first prong on its merits, instead remanding all Dhanasar analysis to the Director because the threshold EB-2 qualification issue was not properly resolved.
Because neither the Director nor AAO has yet evaluated the exceptional ability criteria, AAO remanded for the Director to conduct this analysis in the first instance.
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 +
Because neither the Director nor AAO has yet evaluated the exceptional ability criteria, AAO remanded for the Director to conduct this analysis in the first instance.