AAO noted the same chronological anomalies and the impossibility of five years of post-baccalaureate experience by September 2019. Because the Petitioner did not address this issue on appeal, it was deemed waived.
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 noted the same chronological anomalies and the impossibility of five years of post-baccalaureate experience by September 2019. Because the Petitioner did not address this issue on appeal, it was deemed waived.
AAO agreed that the SNA membership satisfies this criterion, though it noted the record did not explain membership requirements or significance of this membership in the final merits analysis.
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 SNA membership satisfies this criterion, though it noted the record did not explain membership requirements or significance of this membership in the final merits analysis.
at least ten years of full-time experience (employer letters)
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the letters lacked the regulatory required specifics including job duties, full- or part-time status, and dates of experience. No new evidence was submitted 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 agreed that the letters lacked the regulatory required specifics including job duties, full- or part-time status, and dates of experience. No new evidence was submitted on appeal.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that colleague letters providing general praise, without independent corroboration, did not establish recognition for achievements and significant contributions. The Petitioner did not explain specific contributions to the field with documentary evidence.
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 colleague letters providing general praise, without independent corroboration, did not establish recognition for achievements and significant contributions. The Petitioner did not explain specific contributions to the field with documentary evidence.
Support letters did not establish that the Petitioner's biopsychosocial evaluation model or other innovations had field-wide significance beyond local or single-institution impact. One letter was from a physician in a different specialty without relevant expertise to evaluate significance.
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 +
Support letters did not establish that the Petitioner's biopsychosocial evaluation model or other innovations had field-wide significance beyond local or single-institution impact. One letter was from a physician in a different specialty without relevant expertise to evaluate significance.