commanded a salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the salary evidence insufficient because the Petitioner did not explain how his earnings demonstrated exceptional ability, the comparison data was internally inconsistent and ambiguous as to company size category, and even if the salary appeared high relative to some categories, the evidence was inadequate to establish it was indicative of exceptional ability.
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 salary evidence insufficient because the Petitioner did not explain how his earnings demonstrated exceptional ability, the comparison data was internally inconsistent and ambiguous as to company size category, and even if the salary appeared high relative to some categories, the evidence was inadequate to establish it was indicative of exceptional ability.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. His proposed work as an airport operations specialist may benefit individual employers but the record lacks evidence of prospective national-level economic impact, job creation, or broader industry implications.…
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 that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. His proposed work as an airport operations specialist may benefit individual employers but the record lacks evidence of prospective national-level economic impact, job creation, or broader industry implications. Expert letters focused on the importance of the aviation industry generally rather than the specific proposed endeavor, and mere alignment with federal budget priorities is insufficient without demonstrating the specific endeavor's prospective impact.
five years post-baccalaureate progressive experience
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner completed his bachelor's degree in December 2014 and last worked in the relevant field in February 2017, yielding fewer than three years of post-baccalaureate experience—insufficient to satisfy the five-year requirement as an advanced 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 +
AAO found the Petitioner completed his bachelor's degree in December 2014 and last worked in the relevant field in February 2017, yielding fewer than three years of post-baccalaureate experience—insufficient to satisfy the five-year requirement as an advanced degree equivalent.
The record lacks academic transcripts and a credential evaluation; EDGE indicates the Bacharel em Direito is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree and the MBA certificate only to unspecified university study. Without transcripts and an evaluation, a full determination of advanced degree equivalency cannot be made.
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 record lacks academic transcripts and a credential evaluation; EDGE indicates the Bacharel em Direito is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree and the MBA certificate only to unspecified university study. Without transcripts and an evaluation, a full determination of advanced degree equivalency cannot be made.
at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated less than eight years in airport/airline operations (June 2009–February 2017), and his prior work as an office assistant was in unrelated industries, falling short of the required ten years in the relevant 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 found the Petitioner demonstrated less than eight years in airport/airline operations (June 2009–February 2017), and his prior work as an office assistant was in unrelated industries, falling short of the required ten years in the relevant occupation.
AAO found the Petitioner did not establish that ABBTUR qualifies as a professional association as defined in the regulations (requiring a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation), and the membership card had expired only four months after filing. Even if the association qualified, ongoing membership was not demonstrated.
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 Petitioner did not establish that ABBTUR qualifies as a professional association as defined in the regulations (requiring a bachelor's degree for entry into the occupation), and the membership card had expired only four months after filing. Even if the association qualified, ongoing membership was not demonstrated.
license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the professional identification card did not constitute a license to practice the profession or a certification related to his occupation, noting it was issued after he left employment in Brazil, had expired, and was not shown to be required for his intended U.S. occupation. The tax clearance certificate was also insufficient.
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 professional identification card did not constitute a license to practice the profession or a certification related to his occupation, noting it was issued after he left employment in Brazil, had expired, and was not shown to be required for his intended U.S. occupation. The tax clearance certificate was also insufficient.
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits analysis given the failure to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of exceptional ability.
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 declined to conduct a formal final merits analysis given the failure to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of exceptional ability.
The Petitioner described her endeavor only in terms of generic occupational duties, which does not constitute a specific endeavor. The expert letter was not in accord with the record evidence and was not granted decisive weight. The post-filing business plan and company incorporation were material changes made after filing and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing.…
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 Petitioner described her endeavor only in terms of generic occupational duties, which does not constitute a specific endeavor. The expert letter was not in accord with the record evidence and was not granted decisive weight. The post-filing business plan and company incorporation were material changes made after filing and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing. Even if considered, the projected 14 employees and $1.4M revenue would not rise to the level of national importance.