AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to demonstrate she holds membership in any association, finding the certifications demonstrate competency in agile methodologies rather than association membership. The Petitioner offered no probative evidence of actual membership or specific membership requirements.
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 failed to demonstrate she holds membership in any association, finding the certifications demonstrate competency in agile methodologies rather than association membership. The Petitioner offered no probative evidence of actual membership or specific membership requirements.
AAO concluded the Petitioner failed to show his manufacturing engineering consultancy would have impact beyond his company and clients commensurate with national importance, despite arguments tied to STEM, EV production, skilled engineer shortages, and economically depressed area effects.
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 concluded the Petitioner failed to show his manufacturing engineering consultancy would have impact beyond his company and clients commensurate with national importance, despite arguments tied to STEM, EV production, skilled engineer shortages, and economically depressed area effects.
Motion to Reopen – new facts supported by documentary evidence
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the Petitioner did not submit new facts supported by documentary evidence. Counsel's unsubstantiated brief assertions are not evidence, and those assertions are contradicted by the record (e.g., the prior appeal was accompanied by a G-28 signed by former counsel). The Petitioner also failed to substantially comply with any of the Lozada requirements.
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 Petitioner did not submit new facts supported by documentary evidence. Counsel's unsubstantiated brief assertions are not evidence, and those assertions are contradicted by the record (e.g., the prior appeal was accompanied by a G-28 signed by former counsel). The Petitioner also failed to substantially comply with any of the Lozada requirements.
Motion to Reconsider – prior decision incorrect based on law or policy
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the circuit court cases cited by the Petitioner involved petitioners who had substantially complied with at least one Lozada requirement, whereas here the Petitioner had not complied with any. Therefore, the prior decision was not shown to be based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
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 circuit court cases cited by the Petitioner involved petitioners who had substantially complied with at least one Lozada requirement, whereas here the Petitioner had not complied with any. Therefore, the prior decision was not shown to be based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the Step 1 threshold, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of sustained 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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the Step 1 threshold, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
AAO found that the Petitioner's business plan projections lacked support and did not demonstrate substantial economic impact, that her references to job creation, tax revenue, and federal health initiatives were generalizations rather than evidence of broader national implications, and that her expert and support letters did not explain how her individual clinic would have national-level impact beyond her direct clients and…
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 business plan projections lacked support and did not demonstrate substantial economic impact, that her references to job creation, tax revenue, and federal health initiatives were generalizations rather than evidence of broader national implications, and that her expert and support letters did not explain how her individual clinic would have national-level impact beyond her direct clients and employees.
AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence related to the importance of the petroleum industry and electro-mechanical professionals generally, but failed to establish the national importance of his 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 the Petitioner's evidence related to the importance of the petroleum industry and electro-mechanical professionals generally, but failed to establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner did not show how his employment as an electro-mechanical professional would impact the field or economy more broadly, and even considering the revised business-ownership endeavor, the proposed economic impact did not rise to the level of national importance.
AAO agreed the business plan projections were unsupported and did not establish substantial positive economic effects nationally or regionally. Assertions regarding affordable housing and innovative solutions were unsubstantiated. Working in an important field or a government-priority area does not alone establish 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 agreed the business plan projections were unsupported and did not establish substantial positive economic effects nationally or regionally. Assertions regarding affordable housing and innovative solutions were unsubstantiated. Working in an important field or a government-priority area does not alone establish national importance.