AAO found that the Petitioner's HR manager role would not impact the industry more broadly beyond her employer(s), the shortage argument failed because she had not shown her endeavor would significantly reduce any national shortage, and there was no evidence of substantial positive economic effects or job creation attributable to her future work.
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 that the Petitioner's HR manager role would not impact the industry more broadly beyond her employer(s), the shortage argument failed because she had not shown her endeavor would significantly reduce any national shortage, and there was no evidence of substantial positive economic effects or job creation attributable to her future work.
advanced degree equivalency (bachelor's + 5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience in specialty)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's pre-degree experience did not count as post-baccalaureate, her work as a traffic psychologist was not in the specialty of HR management, and she documented only about three years of post-baccalaureate experience in HR, which falls short of the five-year requirement.
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's pre-degree experience did not count as post-baccalaureate, her work as a traffic psychologist was not in the specialty of HR management, and she documented only about three years of post-baccalaureate experience in HR, which falls short of the five-year requirement.
AAO found that general industry statistics and the aggregate impact of 300,000 HR managers nationwide do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.…
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 that general industry statistics and the aggregate impact of 300,000 HR managers nationwide do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's individually tailored services for a limited number of clients lack the broad implications and substantial positive economic effects required by Dhanasar, and the job projection figures were unsupported and internally inconsistent.
The AAO agreed that the advisory opinion letters primarily addressed the importance of the profession rather than the specific proposed endeavor. The business plan's projections of eight jobs and modest tax revenue in a sector where Florida already has nearly 130,000 firms and 900,000 employees did not rise to the level of national importance. General statements about industry value do not satisfy the first prong.
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 AAO agreed that the advisory opinion letters primarily addressed the importance of the profession rather than the specific proposed endeavor. The business plan's projections of eight jobs and modest tax revenue in a sector where Florida already has nearly 130,000 firms and 900,000 employees did not rise to the level of national importance. General statements about industry value do not satisfy the first prong.
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's proposal has substantial merit (affirming the merit sub-component) but found it lacked national importance. Seventh-year projections of six employees and $425,000 in revenues were insufficient to show substantial economic impact; the professor's letter addressed general industry goals rather than the specific impact of the Petitioner's endeavor; and the teaching proposal did not show broader…
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's proposal has substantial merit (affirming the merit sub-component) but found it lacked national importance. Seventh-year projections of six employees and $425,000 in revenues were insufficient to show substantial economic impact; the professor's letter addressed general industry goals rather than the specific impact of the Petitioner's endeavor; and the teaching proposal did not show broader impact on the field of food innovation.
AAO explicitly reserved the third Dhanasar prong as unnecessary to reach given the dispositive findings against the Petitioner on the EB-2 qualification and the first Dhanasar prong.
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 reserved the third Dhanasar prong as unnecessary to reach given the dispositive findings against the Petitioner on the EB-2 qualification and the first Dhanasar prong.
AAO found the proposed endeavors had substantial merit but not national importance. The frozen-food business projections were too small, the HUBZone claim was unsubstantiated, the consulting plan lacked sufficient detail, and the Petitioner's unresolved competing business activities cast doubt on her time commitment.
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 proposed endeavors had substantial merit but not national importance. The frozen-food business projections were too small, the HUBZone claim was unsubstantiated, the consulting plan lacked sufficient detail, and the Petitioner's unresolved competing business activities cast doubt on her time commitment.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director that the record did not demonstrate that membership in the Petitioner's LIDOM team or MLB team requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts; the evidence showed selection based on skills and discipline rather than outstanding achievements.
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 agreed with the Director that the record did not demonstrate that membership in the Petitioner's LIDOM team or MLB team requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts; the evidence showed selection based on skills and discipline rather than outstanding achievements.
AAO found the endeavor is in a field of substantial merit (business/marketing) but the Petitioner conflated his current employment with a prospective endeavor and failed to show broader national economic impact beyond his employer. Broad statements about the marketing profession do not demonstrate national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, and expert letters relied on unsubstantiated projections.
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 endeavor is in a field of substantial merit (business/marketing) but the Petitioner conflated his current employment with a prospective endeavor and failed to show broader national economic impact beyond his employer. Broad statements about the marketing profession do not demonstrate national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, and expert letters relied on unsubstantiated projections.