Explore how AAO evaluates evidence.

AAO found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance. The submitted articles (not printed, only referenced by name) addressed the importance of the field generally, not the specific proposed endeavor's prospective impact. Past experience and citations do not establish national importance because national importance requires focus on prospective impact of the specific endeavor, not past accomplishments or the importance of the industry. The record also lacked evidence of substantial positive economic effects from the specific proposed endeavor.

AAO reaffirmed that the support letters described benefits to individual companies but did not show broader impact on the field, region, or nation, and that alignment with federal priorities does not substitute for evidence of the specific endeavor's prospective national impact.

AAO found that SCOPS applied only part of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), ignoring the provision that allows 'other documentation' when employer letters are unavailable, and failed to analyze the Petitioner's 'other evidence' before denying the petition. The matter is remanded for a complete evaluation.

AAO agreed with SCOPS that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The Petitioner did not explain how she would perform her research outside of her full-time employment, failed to show her employer would allow public dissemination of proprietary research, and her support letter did not reflect specific government or other entity interest in her proposed endeavor. Working in an important field is insufficient without showing the specific endeavor has broader national or global implications.

AAO disagreed with SCOPS and found the Petitioner did not demonstrate she is well-positioned. Her citation record was quantitative without qualitative evidence of influence or adoption of her work; her notable citations merely listed her work in string citations. She lacked a concrete research plan, evidence of prospective funding, or interest from investors or relevant entities. Her support letter was insufficiently detailed and uncorroborated.

AAO agreed with SCOPS that the totality of the Petitioner's evidence failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Awards were company-level or generalized; media coverage appeared to be sponsored/marketing content; a key support letter was fabricated and repudiated by the purported author; citation counts dropped more than 80% and several articles disappeared; publications appeared in a non-reputable publisher's journals; and salary comparison data was flawed and limited to three years.

The Petitioner did not indicate or establish that she received a major, internationally recognized award.

AAO agreed that the Petitioner's research projects were described only in brief summaries without specific details or corroborating evidence of broader national impact. The evidence in the record focused on the importance of the STEM/AI field generally rather than the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, which was insufficient under Dhanasar.

AAO found that the Petitioner's publications, citation metrics, letters of support, patent, funding acknowledgments, and peer review activity did not collectively demonstrate a record of success or progress sufficient to show she is well positioned. Citation comparisons to a broader field were insufficiently specific to her subfields, qualitative impact was not demonstrated, the patent lacked evidence of significance, funding was not shown to be primarily her responsibility, and peer review participation alone did not establish well-positioned status.

Despite being informed of the requirement, the record still lacked comparative circulation, readership, or viewership data needed to establish the publications as major media.