five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO accepted the new letter into evidence because the Director failed to notify the Petitioner of all deficiencies in the RFE, but found that the new letter had reduced probative value as it came from a non-employer third party, and that the duties it described—monitoring deliveries, payments, and contract obligations—were inconsistent with human resources functions, creating unresolved discrepancies the Petitioner did not…
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 accepted the new letter into evidence because the Director failed to notify the Petitioner of all deficiencies in the RFE, but found that the new letter had reduced probative value as it came from a non-employer third party, and that the duties it described—monitoring deliveries, payments, and contract obligations—were inconsistent with human resources functions, creating unresolved discrepancies the Petitioner did not resolve with independent objective evidence.
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold number of criteria, though AAO noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not demonstrate the required 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 +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold number of criteria, though AAO noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Because the Petitioner merely pointed to previously submitted documents without providing new arguments or evidence on appeal, AAO treated the claim as effectively abandoned/waived.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Because the Petitioner merely pointed to previously submitted documents without providing new arguments or evidence on appeal, AAO treated the claim as effectively abandoned/waived.
The AAO agreed that while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, she failed to demonstrate national importance. Her work as an IT project manager was not shown to affect the field of IT project management more broadly, her process mapping methodology was not shown to be her innovation or to broadly benefit the field, her prior project experience is relevant to the second prong not the first, and job market data does n…
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 while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, she failed to demonstrate national importance. Her work as an IT project manager was not shown to affect the field of IT project management more broadly, her process mapping methodology was not shown to be her innovation or to broadly benefit the field, her prior project experience is relevant to the second prong not the first, and job market data does not bear on whether her proposed endeavor is of national importance.
AAO found the evaluator's credit-hour conversion implausible, noted the absence of supporting evidence for an accelerated program, and relied on EDGE data to discount the evaluation. Because a U.S. bachelor's degree typically requires four years of study, the three-year Brazilian degree was not found equivalent.
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 evaluator's credit-hour conversion implausible, noted the absence of supporting evidence for an accelerated program, and relied on EDGE data to discount the evaluation. Because a U.S. bachelor's degree typically requires four years of study, the three-year Brazilian degree was not found equivalent.
AAO found that the evidence showed benefits to individual client companies but did not substantiate broader implications within the FDI or EIM fields or for the nation as a whole. Claims of unique or novel methodology were unsubstantiated, the connection between EIM services and FDI was insufficiently explained, and the proposed endeavor did not appear to operate on a scale rising to 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 +
AAO found that the evidence showed benefits to individual client companies but did not substantiate broader implications within the FDI or EIM fields or for the nation as a whole. Claims of unique or novel methodology were unsubstantiated, the connection between EIM services and FDI was insufficiently explained, and the proposed endeavor did not appear to operate on a scale rising to national importance.
The support letter from HRQ only confirms she oversaw a student staff and does not establish that she performed peer review or had a formal judging designation. The Moot Court Honor Board documentation shows members organized and competed in competitions, not that the Petitioner judged them.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The support letter from HRQ only confirms she oversaw a student staff and does not establish that she performed peer review or had a formal judging designation. The Moot Court Honor Board documentation shows members organized and competed in competitions, not that the Petitioner judged them.