Explore how AAO evaluates evidence.

AAO agreed that substantial merit was shown for the HVAC business — a point the Director did not address — but found national importance unestablished because the Petitioner's evidence focused on the importance of the HVAC industry generally rather than the specific proposed endeavor's prospective impact. Support letters discussed the Petitioner's qualifications rather than his specific endeavor, the expert opinion letter offered only generalized observations about the occupation and industry, and business plan projections lacked corroborating evidence and were insufficient in scale to rise to national importance.

AAO found the Petitioner could not demonstrate five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience because her degree was obtained in March 2018 and her employment only ran through June 2022, yielding approximately four years and three months. Additionally, the employment verification lacked required duty descriptions, and there were unexplained inconsistencies between the employment verification, resume, and supervisor letter regarding her job title and dates.

AAO agreed that while home health care has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Her assertions relied on the importance of the industry generally rather than her specific endeavor, and she provided no evidence that her work as a single home health aide would produce national or global implications in the healthcare field or substantial positive economic effects beyond her individual patients.

AAO agrees the endeavor has substantial merit but finds national importance not established: assertions about the importance of the industry do not equate to importance of the specific endeavor; expert letter did not consider the actual business plan; and economic projections were vague, conflicting, and unsupported.

The AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner's letters addressed his personal qualifications and past accomplishments rather than the prospective impact of his specific endeavor; the expert opinion letter offered only general observations about the pharmaceutical industry; and the professional plan lacked a timeline and did not document how his activities would advance the pharmaceutical industry or create substantial economic benefits.

The Petitioner provided only general assertions that aviation industry improvements have national importance, without specifics about the nature or extent of expected improvements or reliable evidence quantifying the benefits. The submitted scholarly articles described problems but also proposed solutions, and the Petitioner did not explain how his endeavor would improve upon them. FAA materials did not specifically reference the proposed endeavor.

AAO found that aircraft mechanic/technician is not a profession requiring a baccalaureate as minimum entry per the statutory and regulatory definition. BLS guidance confirms FAA-approved technical school (not a bachelor's degree) is the typical entry route, and the Petitioner himself began work as an aircraft mechanic years before earning his degree. The prospective job offer for a project manager did not establish a professional position either.

The letters from the co-editor and president described the selection criteria but did not establish the award's national or international recognition for excellence in the field. The record lacked documentation showing how the broader field views the award beyond the awarding organization itself.

AAO found that the Petitioner's RIMS II-based job projections lacked detail on job types, part-time vs. full-time breakdown, and location; the business plan's employment and revenue projections were unsupported and did not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantially impact the economy; the research demonstrated importance of the construction industry generally rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor; and the expert opinion letter addressed housing shortages and industry importance but not the Petitioner's specific business plan or its prospective economic impact.

AAO explicitly reserved this prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the first prong, making it unnecessary to reach the second prong.