AAO agreed the Petitioner showed substantial merit but failed to establish national importance. The record focused on the insurance industry generally rather than on the specific proposed endeavor; the expert opinion letter was conclusory and did not explain how the specific endeavor would have national importance; the business plan lacked credible projections on recruiting and training; projected profits ($16,860–$107,658…
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 Petitioner showed substantial merit but failed to establish national importance. The record focused on the insurance industry generally rather than on the specific proposed endeavor; the expert opinion letter was conclusory and did not explain how the specific endeavor would have national importance; the business plan lacked credible projections on recruiting and training; projected profits ($16,860–$107,658 over 5 years) and planned hiring of 27 employees did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at a regional or national level commensurate with national importance.
Because the Petitioner provided inconsistent descriptions of her endeavor and did not address the change on appeal, AAO cannot ascertain the proposed endeavor and therefore cannot find it has substantial merit and 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 +
Because the Petitioner provided inconsistent descriptions of her endeavor and did not address the change on appeal, AAO cannot ascertain the proposed endeavor and therefore cannot find it has substantial merit and national importance.
AAO found the business plan, dated after the petition filing, introduced new material facts not existing at the time of filing and thus could not establish eligibility. Even if considered, the plan raised veracity concerns because the sole business address was the Petitioner's private residence, making it implausible that 11 employees would work there.…
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 business plan, dated after the petition filing, introduced new material facts not existing at the time of filing and thus could not establish eligibility. Even if considered, the plan raised veracity concerns because the sole business address was the Petitioner's private residence, making it implausible that 11 employees would work there. The opinion letter and article were immaterial because they addressed the Petitioner's background, not the specific proposed endeavor.
letters from current or former employers documenting at least 10 years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)/(F))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agrees the warehouse-manager experience post-dated filing, and additionally finds the production-operator employment letter lacks any description of duties, so it cannot be assessed against the sought occupation.
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 agrees the warehouse-manager experience post-dated filing, and additionally finds the production-operator employment letter lacks any description of duties, so it cannot be assessed against the sought occupation.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agrees the evidence shows colleagues' respect but does not establish recognition for achievements or significant contributions to the manufacturing industry as a whole.
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 agrees the evidence shows colleagues' respect but does not establish recognition for achievements or significant contributions to the manufacturing industry as a whole.