The Petitioner's motion submissions either reasserted claims abandoned on appeal (and therefore waived), introduced new eligibility claims not previously raised, or consisted of evidence postdating the petition filing date — none of which qualify as new facts within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
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's motion submissions either reasserted claims abandoned on appeal (and therefore waived), introduced new eligibility claims not previously raised, or consisted of evidence postdating the petition filing date — none of which qualify as new facts within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor did not demonstrate national importance. General work experience evidence is more relevant to the second prong; letters of recommendation and generic industry articles do not address how the endeavor extends beyond the employer's scope or has broader national implications. The post-filing business plan was properly excluded as a new set of facts.
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 proposed endeavor did not demonstrate national importance. General work experience evidence is more relevant to the second prong; letters of recommendation and generic industry articles do not address how the endeavor extends beyond the employer's scope or has broader national implications. The post-filing business plan was properly excluded as a new set of facts.
AAO agreed the Petitioner's three-and-a-half-year degree was insufficient. The letter from the school only described the course length, not that it was an accelerated program, so the argument did not overcome the deficiency.
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 the Petitioner's three-and-a-half-year degree was insufficient. The letter from the school only described the course length, not that it was an accelerated program, so the argument did not overcome the deficiency.
Ten years of full-time experience in the occupation (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's experience was as a military officer in administrative and HR roles, not as a military instructor, entrepreneur, or sales consultant — the disparate occupations he proposed to pursue. The experience letters therefore did not establish 10 years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
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 experience was as a military officer in administrative and HR roles, not as a military instructor, entrepreneur, or sales consultant — the disparate occupations he proposed to pursue. The experience letters therefore did not establish 10 years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
License to practice the occupation (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed this category was not met because the Petitioner offered no specific evidence or argument on appeal and had expressly stated initially he was not submitting evidence of licenses or certifications.
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 this category was not met because the Petitioner offered no specific evidence or argument on appeal and had expressly stated initially he was not submitting evidence of licenses or certifications.