AAO withdrew SCOPS's finding that this criterion was satisfied. The submitted articles were not about the Petitioner as required, some articles lacked identified authors, and the Petitioner failed to establish the websites constituted major trade publications or other major media.
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 withdrew SCOPS's finding that this criterion was satisfied. The submitted articles were not about the Petitioner as required, some articles lacked identified authors, and the Petitioner failed to establish the websites constituted major trade publications or other major media.
The Petitioner submitted income tax records and a salary calculator report comparing his earnings to the mean salary for a 'Lawyer in Brazil,' but failed to use comparable data for law firm partners. The comparison data also was from a different year than the income reported.
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 Petitioner submitted income tax records and a salary calculator report comparing his earnings to the mean salary for a 'Lawyer in Brazil,' but failed to use comparable data for law firm partners. The comparison data also was from a different year than the income reported.
SCOPS determined the Petitioner's coauthored article was not scholarly, and the Petitioner did not contest this on appeal. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the publication platform was a professional publication or major media.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
查看完整裁决理由 +
SCOPS determined the Petitioner's coauthored article was not scholarly, and the Petitioner did not contest this on appeal. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the publication platform was a professional publication or major media.
AAO found that the business plan contained extensive inconsistencies regarding the operating location (citing New York and Florida multipliers while claiming Pennsylvania operations) and material conflicts between the Form I-140 salary ($150,000) and job title ('logistics expert') versus the business plan ($85,000–$103,318 and 'chief executive officer'). These undermined the reliability of all financial projections.…
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 business plan contained extensive inconsistencies regarding the operating location (citing New York and Florida multipliers while claiming Pennsylvania operations) and material conflicts between the Form I-140 salary ($150,000) and job title ('logistics expert') versus the business plan ($85,000–$103,318 and 'chief executive officer'). These undermined the reliability of all financial projections. Even setting aside reliability issues, the proposed logistics consulting services and app are duplicative of existing services and lack national or global implications.
AAO found the Petitioner had not demonstrated how his proposed safety app and consulting work would impact workplace safety at a national or global scale beyond his employer and its clients. The Petitioner failed to show his work was materially different from other similarly experienced employees in the field or that his job-creation claims had a national-level impact.
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 the Petitioner had not demonstrated how his proposed safety app and consulting work would impact workplace safety at a national or global scale beyond his employer and its clients. The Petitioner failed to show his work was materially different from other similarly experienced employees in the field or that his job-creation claims had a national-level impact.
final merits determination for exceptional ability
裁决如何说明
AAO agreed the Director's decision lacked substantive analysis but declined to resolve this issue given that the NIW national importance finding was independently dispositive.
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 the Director's decision lacked substantive analysis but declined to resolve this issue given that the NIW national importance finding was independently dispositive.