AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision that the Petitioner had not established she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, without additional independent analysis.
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision that the Petitioner had not established she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, without additional independent analysis.
On motion, AAO found that the Petitioner's statement about researching applicability of machine learning and graph data mining to solve complex problems like COVID-19 spread patterns provided a sufficiently specific proposed endeavor. AAO further applied USCIS STEM policy manual guidance and concluded that research projects in sensor networks and machine learning have broad implications demonstrating 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 +
On motion, AAO found that the Petitioner's statement about researching applicability of machine learning and graph data mining to solve complex problems like COVID-19 spread patterns provided a sufficiently specific proposed endeavor. AAO further applied USCIS STEM policy manual guidance and concluded that research projects in sensor networks and machine learning have broad implications demonstrating national importance.
advanced degree or equivalent (five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The letters covering confirmed full-time employment span less than five years; the letter from one employer fails to confirm full-time status; and the Petitioner did not address the Director's credibility findings about inconsistencies in the evaluation letters.
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 covering confirmed full-time employment span less than five years; the letter from one employer fails to confirm full-time status; and the Petitioner did not address the Director's credibility findings about inconsistencies in the evaluation letters.
ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
AAO 为什么未被说服
One employer letter fails to confirm full-time status, and the letters from other employers account for less than five years of full-time experience in the aggregate, falling well short of ten years.
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 +
One employer letter fails to confirm full-time status, and the letters from other employers account for less than five years of full-time experience in the aggregate, falling well short of ten years.
Inconsistency regarding claimed enrollment at redacted university
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the Petitioner's initially submitted resume did not include 'in-view' language as claimed, and she provided no credible or logical explanation for listing the university with a June 2015 date under educational qualifications alongside schools she had actually attended and graduated from, without evidence she had even applied for admission.
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 that the Petitioner's initially submitted resume did not include 'in-view' language as claimed, and she provided no credible or logical explanation for listing the university with a June 2015 date under educational qualifications alongside schools she had actually attended and graduated from, without evidence she had even applied for admission.
AAO identified concerns with the authenticity of recommendation letters, including an unsigned letter with a mismatched address and a letterhead with quality and formatting anomalies inconsistent with the purported source.
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 identified concerns with the authenticity of recommendation letters, including an unsigned letter with a mismatched address and a letterhead with quality and formatting anomalies inconsistent with the purported source.
AAO was unable to corroborate the Petitioner's publication claims and found that an apparent discrepancy in conference dates undermined the claim about a specific conference presentation. AAO also noted it was unclear how someone whose stated focus is regulatory affairs would be performing and publishing research in oncology, and that her resume contained no information regarding publications or cancer research.
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 was unable to corroborate the Petitioner's publication claims and found that an apparent discrepancy in conference dates undermined the claim about a specific conference presentation. AAO also noted it was unclear how someone whose stated focus is regulatory affairs would be performing and publishing research in oncology, and that her resume contained no information regarding publications or cancer research.
Discrepancies between resume and prior visa applications
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the Petitioner's prior nonimmigrant visa applications described occupations—customer service and child support work—entirely inconsistent with her resume's claim of working in regulatory affairs since September 2006, and that neither of the positions on her NIV applications appeared on her resume.
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 that the Petitioner's prior nonimmigrant visa applications described occupations—customer service and child support work—entirely inconsistent with her resume's claim of working in regulatory affairs since September 2006, and that neither of the positions on her NIV applications appeared on her resume.