AAO concluded that training materials are confidential and proprietary to the employer, that trainees were employees of the same employer, that no causal link to job creation was shown, and that recommendation letters relate to the second prong rather than 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 concluded that training materials are confidential and proprietary to the employer, that trainees were employees of the same employer, that no causal link to job creation was shown, and that recommendation letters relate to the second prong rather than national importance.
labor certification supports advanced degree professional classification
AAO 为什么未被说服
The labor certification requires only a bachelor's and six months of experience, which does not meet the advanced degree requirement; AAO declined to allow a post-decision change to EB-3.
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 labor certification requires only a bachelor's and six months of experience, which does not meet the advanced degree requirement; AAO declined to allow a post-decision change to EB-3.
Petitioner's net income and net current assets were negative and below the $73,450 proffered wage, and no evidence of wages paid to the beneficiary was submitted.
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 +
Petitioner's net income and net current assets were negative and below the $73,450 proffered wage, and no evidence of wages paid to the beneficiary was submitted.
AAO agreed that neither the original endeavor (working as an industrial engineer for any hiring employer) nor the consulting firm endeavor (disqualified as post-filing new facts) established national importance. The Petitioner's industry-level arguments were misplaced because national importance requires focus on the specific proposed endeavor, not the importance of the industry or field.…
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 neither the original endeavor (working as an industrial engineer for any hiring employer) nor the consulting firm endeavor (disqualified as post-filing new facts) established national importance. The Petitioner's industry-level arguments were misplaced because national importance requires focus on the specific proposed endeavor, not the importance of the industry or field. Generalized industry reports do not demonstrate how the specific endeavor would have national importance.
Timeliness of combined motion to reopen and reconsider
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the Petitioner provided no justification for the late filing at the time of filing, giving the Director no basis to exercise discretion to excuse the delay. On appeal, her explanation that confusing USCIS guidance led her to believe she had 90 days was unpersuasive because the January 28, 2021 announcement plainly stated 60 calendar days, and the record showed she had already gathered supporting documentation…
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 provided no justification for the late filing at the time of filing, giving the Director no basis to exercise discretion to excuse the delay. On appeal, her explanation that confusing USCIS guidance led her to believe she had 90 days was unpersuasive because the January 28, 2021 announcement plainly stated 60 calendar days, and the record showed she had already gathered supporting documentation before the May 4 deadline.
on balance, beneficial to waive job offer requirement
裁决如何说明
AAO expressly reserved its opinion on whether the record satisfies the third prong, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-, because the Petitioner's failure on the first prong was dispositive.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO expressly reserved its opinion on whether the record satisfies the third prong, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-, because the Petitioner's failure on the first prong was dispositive.
AAO expressly reserved its opinion on whether the record satisfies the second prong, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-, because the Petitioner's failure on the first prong was dispositive.
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 expressly reserved its opinion on whether the record satisfies the second prong, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-, because the Petitioner's failure on the first prong was dispositive.
AAO found that the Petitioner's heavy citation metrics, while sufficient at step 1, did not establish sustained individual acclaim at step 2 because his individual contribution to high-citation collaborative work was unsubstantiated, peer review activity is routine rather than indicative of top-level acclaim, and publishing in high-impact journals does not presumptively confer extraordinary ability.
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's heavy citation metrics, while sufficient at step 1, did not establish sustained individual acclaim at step 2 because his individual contribution to high-citation collaborative work was unsubstantiated, peer review activity is routine rather than indicative of top-level acclaim, and publishing in high-impact journals does not presumptively confer extraordinary ability.
AAO found the Director conflated the initial evidentiary threshold with the final merits determination, improperly relied on outside-record information, and misapplied the criterion by focusing on rank rather than 'original contributions of major significance.' AAO concluded that the heavy citation data and explanations of the work's relevance were sufficient to establish contributions of major significance by a preponderan…
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 +
AAO found the Director conflated the initial evidentiary threshold with the final merits determination, improperly relied on outside-record information, and misapplied the criterion by focusing on rank rather than 'original contributions of major significance.' AAO concluded that the heavy citation data and explanations of the work's relevance were sufficient to establish contributions of major significance by a preponderance of the evidence.