AAO declines to reach the merits of exceptional ability and remands for the Director to determine eligibility in the first instance, noting the Director may request additional evidence including evidence that the offered position requires an individual 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 declines to reach the merits of exceptional ability and remands for the Director to determine eligibility in the first instance, noting the Director may request additional evidence including evidence that the offered position requires an individual of exceptional ability.
display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases
证据为何得到认可
AAO concluded that musical performances should be considered 'artistic exhibitions or showcases' intended to showcase the Petitioner's musical talent as a bassoonist, and that she therefore satisfies the plain language of the criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's determination.
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 concluded that musical performances should be considered 'artistic exhibitions or showcases' intended to showcase the Petitioner's musical talent as a bassoonist, and that she therefore satisfies the plain language of the criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's determination.
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
裁决如何说明
AAO declined to reach this criterion because even if the Petitioner established it, she still could not meet the required number of three criteria, making a decision on this ground unnecessary.
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 reach this criterion because even if the Petitioner established it, she still could not meet the required number of three criteria, making a decision on this ground unnecessary.
The Petitioner's argument that the criterion does not apply to her profession was rejected, precluding consideration of comparable evidence. The video presentation submitted was given to a general audience of Spanish-speaking fashion lovers, not learned persons in the field, and was not shown to qualify as 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 +
The Petitioner's argument that the criterion does not apply to her profession was rejected, precluding consideration of comparable evidence. The video presentation submitted was given to a general audience of Spanish-speaking fashion lovers, not learned persons in the field, and was not shown to qualify as major media.
Step 2 final merits determination was not reached because the Petitioner failed at step 1. AAO nonetheless noted in dicta that the record does 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 +
Step 2 final merits determination was not reached because the Petitioner failed at step 1. AAO nonetheless noted in dicta that the record does not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
The Petitioner's association roles did not demonstrate that these entities had any interest in devoting resources to the United States. He failed to explain how he would conduct research in the United States, maintain access to Korean technologies from abroad, fund his endeavor, or identify specific buyers or products for any proposed sales.
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 +
The Petitioner's association roles did not demonstrate that these entities had any interest in devoting resources to the United States. He failed to explain how he would conduct research in the United States, maintain access to Korean technologies from abroad, fund his endeavor, or identify specific buyers or products for any proposed sales.
The Petitioner failed to identify any specific research area, technique, or technology he proposes to bring to the United States, and did not explain how sales of U.S. medical equipment to Korea would benefit the United States at a nationally important scale. Reference letters were conclusory and lacked probative details.
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 failed to identify any specific research area, technique, or technology he proposes to bring to the United States, and did not explain how sales of U.S. medical equipment to Korea would benefit the United States at a nationally important scale. Reference letters were conclusory and lacked probative details.