检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO found the membership letters do not establish that the Petitioner was a member of either association at the time the petition was filed, and even if they did, neither association requires outstanding achievements of members as judged by recognized national or international experts. One organization is described as open to all engineers and computer scientists, and the other distinguishes senior/fellow members from student members, with the record not establishing the Petitioner holds the higher membership tier.

AAO found that the Petitioner's own statements, her employer's letters, and an expert letter were insufficiently specific and lacked corroborating documentary evidence. All three published articles about the Petitioner appeared in a single week, undermining sustained acclaim. The record did not compare her achievements or recognition to others in the digital exhibition field. The Director's inquiry into her influence on the field and into the career-of-acclaimed-work standard were consistent with USCIS policy and case law, not novel requirements.

AAO did not need to reach a final merits determination given the Step 1 failure, but reviewed the record in the aggregate and found it does not establish the sustained acclaim or top-of-field status required for the extraordinary ability classification.

The AAO found that the Petitioner's letters of support, publications, citation evidence, education, peer review activity, and funding acknowledgments collectively failed to demonstrate a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned. Specifically: the letters did not show her findings being utilized in clinical practice; citation comparisons were drawn from inapplicable broader fields; her single cited article's citations were largely introductory references; her education alone was insufficient; her plan for a postdoctoral position lacked supporting documentation from the institution; two instances of peer review were not indicative of success; and funding acknowledgments did not show she (rather than her supervisor) was responsible for obtaining the funding.

AAO explicitly reserved judgment on the second prong because the first prong's failure was dispositive of the appeal.

AAO explicitly reserved judgment on the third prong because the first prong's failure was dispositive of the appeal.

AAO formally reserved the final merits determination under Bagamasbad because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold criteria count, but reviewed the record in the aggregate and found it does not demonstrate the required acclaim.

AAO reserved opinion on criterion (v) because even if it were satisfied, the record still would not meet at least three criteria, making resolution unnecessary to the ultimate decision.

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner met the high salary criterion.

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner met the judging criterion at step one.