The record did not include evidence that the award was recognized by the field in general rather than mainly limited to the conference participants, and no media coverage rose to the level of national or international recognition.
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 did not include evidence that the award was recognized by the field in general rather than mainly limited to the conference participants, and no media coverage rose to the level of national or international recognition.
The letters showed the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for his particular accounts and projects, but not for the company as a whole. No organizational chart or similar evidence established his place in the overall hierarchy, and the evidence did not show he contributed to the company in a way of significant importance to its overall business operations.
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 letters showed the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for his particular accounts and projects, but not for the company as a whole. No organizational chart or similar evidence established his place in the overall hierarchy, and the evidence did not show he contributed to the company in a way of significant importance to its overall business operations.
Commanded a high salary or remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner failed this criterion for three reasons: (1) the 2017 tax return was only an 'extract translation' and lacked a certified complete and accurate English translation; (2) no supporting documentation established the sources of his gross income; and (3) the salary comparators used (civil engineers and civil engineering drafters) did not demonstrate exceptional ability as a construction project manager.
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 failed this criterion for three reasons: (1) the 2017 tax return was only an 'extract translation' and lacked a certified complete and accurate English translation; (2) no supporting documentation established the sources of his gross income; and (3) the salary comparators used (civil engineers and civil engineering drafters) did not demonstrate exceptional ability as a construction project manager.
The letters lacked specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact that the Petitioner's work had in the overall field, and did not show how the work impacted the field beyond individual company clients and users.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The letters lacked specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact that the Petitioner's work had in the overall field, and did not show how the work impacted the field beyond individual company clients and users.
AAO reserved formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted the aggregate record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
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 reserved formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted the aggregate record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
AAO explicitly declined to consider the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO explicitly declined to consider the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
AAO explicitly declined to consider the second prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
为什么值得参考
识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣，以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO explicitly declined to consider the second prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
The Petitioner's arguments focused on his personal skills and experience rather than the proposed endeavor itself. AAO found this approach legally misdirected and concluded the Petitioner failed to sufficiently challenge the Director's adverse first-prong finding.
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's arguments focused on his personal skills and experience rather than the proposed endeavor itself. AAO found this approach legally misdirected and concluded the Petitioner failed to sufficiently challenge the Director's adverse first-prong finding.