AAO agreed that the differing headquarters locations (Virginia vs. New Jersey) would have resulted in different proffered wages and required testing of the U.S. labor market in different geographical areas had the Petitioner's offer been made at the time of the original labor certification filing.…
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 that the differing headquarters locations (Virginia vs. New Jersey) would have resulted in different proffered wages and required testing of the U.S. labor market in different geographical areas had the Petitioner's offer been made at the time of the original labor certification filing. The appellate evidence showing a leased office in the same MSA was declined consideration under Matter of Soriano and would not have changed the outcome anyway since the Petitioner never asserted the proffered wage and recruitment area would have matched.
Qualifying experience with Employer 1 (Jan 2000–Sep 2002, India)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Employer 1 letter fails the regulatory description requirement, and the Petitioner did not show the letter was unavailable. The Beneficiary's bare assertion of unavailability is insufficient, and affidavits from co-workers lack independent corroborating evidence of their claimed employment.
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 Employer 1 letter fails the regulatory description requirement, and the Petitioner did not show the letter was unavailable. The Beneficiary's bare assertion of unavailability is insufficient, and affidavits from co-workers lack independent corroborating evidence of their claimed employment.
Qualifying experience with Employers 2 and 3 (India, Oct 2002–Dec 2004)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Without employer letters, the Petitioner must show unavailability before alternative evidence can be considered. The mere assertion of unwillingness is not sufficient, and no independent corroboration of the affiants' employment was provided.
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 +
Without employer letters, the Petitioner must show unavailability before alternative evidence can be considered. The mere assertion of unwillingness is not sufficient, and no independent corroboration of the affiants' employment was provided.
Qualifying experience with Employer 4 (Jan 2005–Jun 2005, U.S.)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Employer 4's letter omits most required H.14 technologies, and discrepancies between the 2007 and current letters regarding title, duties, and technologies undermine the reliability of the claimed experience.
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 +
Employer 4's letter omits most required H.14 technologies, and discrepancies between the 2007 and current letters regarding title, duties, and technologies undermine the reliability of the claimed experience.
Qualifying experience with Employer 6 (Oct 2006–Dec 2007, U.S.)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The 2008 letter does not show use of the required technologies in MVC architecture as required by part H.14, and multiple discrepancies between the employer's 2007 and 2008 letters and the Beneficiary's 2010 visa application undermine reliability.
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 2008 letter does not show use of the required technologies in MVC architecture as required by part H.14, and multiple discrepancies between the employer's 2007 and 2008 letters and the Beneficiary's 2010 visa application undermine reliability.
Qualifying experience with Employer 5 (Jul 2005–Sep 2006, U.S.)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Employer 5's letter does not show MVC architecture work or most H.14 technologies, and the duties described in the letter conflict with those stated in the 2010 visa application.
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 +
Employer 5's letter does not show MVC architecture work or most H.14 technologies, and the duties described in the letter conflict with those stated in the 2010 visa application.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The new MES letter confirms the title but still fails to show that recognized national or international experts judged prospective members' achievements as outstanding as a condition of eligibility.
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 new MES letter confirms the title but still fails to show that recognized national or international experts judged prospective members' achievements as outstanding as a condition of eligibility.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
AAO 为什么未被说服
The new MES letter primarily contains bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying those contributions or showing they rise to major significance in the field.
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 new MES letter primarily contains bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying those contributions or showing they rise to major significance in the field.
AAO found that the submitted evidence — including general articles on the importance of sales and operations management, a business plan lacking identified customers or industry specificity, and unsupported revenue and hiring projections — did not demonstrate broader implications rising to the level of national importance for either 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 the submitted evidence — including general articles on the importance of sales and operations management, a business plan lacking identified customers or industry specificity, and unsupported revenue and hiring projections — did not demonstrate broader implications rising to the level of national importance for either proposed endeavor. AAO also noted that a worker shortage alone cannot establish NIW eligibility.
AAO agreed the Petitioner had not established national importance. Speaking engagements were insufficiently quantified, media coverage showed personal recognition but not broad field impact, professional memberships and support letters did not describe the proposed endeavor's national importance, the business plan's cultural and economic projections were too limited (only 10 direct jobs in 5 years), and the expert opinion l…
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 the Petitioner had not established national importance. Speaking engagements were insufficiently quantified, media coverage showed personal recognition but not broad field impact, professional memberships and support letters did not describe the proposed endeavor's national importance, the business plan's cultural and economic projections were too limited (only 10 direct jobs in 5 years), and the expert opinion letter overstated the evidence by conflating the overall industry's importance with the Petitioner's specific endeavor.