AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, noting the misstatement of the Director's conclusion on appeal and the lack of supporting evidence for the proposed training academy or other national importance factors.
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 failed to establish national importance, noting the misstatement of the Director's conclusion on appeal and the lack of supporting evidence for the proposed training academy or other national importance factors.
AAO agreed the evidence was insufficient to show a record of success, noted only photographs of 4 of the 20 claimed book covers, found the business plan was merely a slight expansion of the endeavor description with unsupported projections, and that reference letters showed only past interest in Nigeria.
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 agreed the evidence was insufficient to show a record of success, noted only photographs of 4 of the 20 claimed book covers, found the business plan was merely a slight expansion of the endeavor description with unsupported projections, and that reference letters showed only past interest in Nigeria.
license to practice the profession (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed with the Director and additionally found that the Petitioner had not established that his occupation requires a license to practice; the appellate argument was deemed waived for lack of specificity.
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 and additionally found that the Petitioner had not established that his occupation requires a license to practice; the appellate argument was deemed waived for lack of specificity.
ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO deemed the issue waived because the Petitioner did not identify the specific evidence allegedly disregarded or discuss it with specificity on appeal.
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 deemed the issue waived because the Petitioner did not identify the specific evidence allegedly disregarded or discuss it with specificity on appeal.
AAO reserved the Dhanasar prongs given the dispositive EB-2 ineligibility, but noted the proposed endeavor was insufficiently described and that on appeal Petitioner impermissibly attempted to introduce material new facts (a new company).
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 reserved the Dhanasar prongs given the dispositive EB-2 ineligibility, but noted the proposed endeavor was insufficiently described and that on appeal Petitioner impermissibly attempted to introduce material new facts (a new company).
Comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the comparable evidence provision requires that the six criteria not readily apply to the petitioner's 'occupation,' but being a genetic carrier is a biological characteristic rather than an 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 that the comparable evidence provision requires that the six criteria not readily apply to the petitioner's 'occupation,' but being a genetic carrier is a biological characteristic rather than an occupation. Additionally, carrying a rare genetic trait and participating in a research study as a subject does not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, and the Petitioner failed to identify which specific criteria her evidence was truly comparable to.
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner failed to establish that either of the two organizations he claimed had a distinguished reputation, relying only on Wikipedia and his own statements. Even setting aside the reputation issue, the Petitioner's roles were at the project level rather than for the organizations as a whole.
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 failed to establish that either of the two organizations he claimed had a distinguished reputation, relying only on Wikipedia and his own statements. Even setting aside the reputation issue, the Petitioner's roles were at the project level rather than for the organizations as a whole.
The Petitioner failed to establish that Construction Manager was the appropriate occupational comparison. The HR letter submitted on appeal did not provide a job description or sufficiently compare the Petitioner's role to the Construction Manager profile in the DOL Handbook, leaving only unpersuasive assertions of similarity.
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 failed to establish that Construction Manager was the appropriate occupational comparison. The HR letter submitted on appeal did not provide a job description or sufficiently compare the Petitioner's role to the Construction Manager profile in the DOL Handbook, leaving only unpersuasive assertions of similarity.