检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO found that the COO letter alone was insufficient, that there was no independent corroborating evidence such as bylaws or membership criteria, and that the record did not demonstrate the selection committee members possess recognized national or international expertise.

AAO found the articles lack characteristics of scholarly articles (peer review, footnotes, bibliographies), were written as a Forbes Council member rather than as a researcher or expert, and that Forbes.com is not geared toward learned persons with profound knowledge in a particular field but toward a general business audience.

AAO found that venture capital funding is a business transaction rather than a prize or award, that the grant and Awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the Petitioner's field, and that the Petitioner was not individually recognized but rather his business and its products were.

AAO agreed that while the record shows original contributions, there was insufficient evidence of broad adoption or significant impact in the field. A pending patent does not establish substantial impact, and venture capital funding does not by itself establish major significance.

AAO found that the submitted articles overwhelmingly focus on the Petitioner's business and products with only brief, incidental references to the Petitioner himself, and that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media.

AAO found that general chief executive wage data is too broad, does not account for industry specialization or geographic variation between NYC and broader New York, and that the equity valuation was not sufficiently corroborated.

AAO found that while the Petitioner has had career success, the evidence across all categories failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Media coverage was limited, judging experience lacked distinction, patent contributions did not translate to personal acclaim, publication record was thin and outdated, salary comparison was flawed, and recommendation letters reflected a solicited few rather than the overall field.

AAO found that the HGTV evidence showed the Petitioner's employer had contributed to HGTV projects but did not establish the Petitioner's specific contributions or that his manufacturing advancements were the reason for the contract. The claimed licensing relationship with the composite decking company was not supported by documentary evidence, and even if a relationship existed, the record did not link it to the Petitioner's work. The structural consultant's letter spoke to the quality of the Petitioner's work but did not address his proposed endeavor or record of success in improving manufacturing techniques. The continuing education evidence showed a different individual as course instructor, not the Petitioner. Employment alone was insufficient to demonstrate the level of interest from relevant entities needed under Dhanasar.

AAO agreed with SCOPS that the endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, finding that industry reports did not address the specific endeavor, client letters spoke to prong 2, and the Petitioner did not show his modular systems are novel improvements over existing solutions.

AAO found that the transcript in the record reflects less than four years of study, contradicting both academic evaluations' assertion of four years. The two evaluations also conflicted with each other on total credits earned (251.91 vs. 132.5). Per AACRAO EDGE, only a 4- or 5-year Brazilian Titulo de Bacharel is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the record does not establish the required foreign equivalent degree.