检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The Petitioner did not assert that the prior AAO decision incorrectly applied law or USCIS policy, which is required for a motion to reconsider. His attempt to reach back to the Director's underlying denial decision was outside the proper scope of a reconsideration motion.

For the China Fisheries Association, the Petitioner failed to submit bylaws or other official membership criteria documentation, so AAO could not evaluate whether membership is judged by recognized experts. For the Aquafarming Association, the bylaws require 'outstanding influence or outstanding talents,' which AAO found are not the same as 'outstanding achievements.' The president's letter addressed the Petitioner's personal accomplishments, which are irrelevant to whether the association's membership requirements meet the regulatory standard.

AAO agreed with the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the published material criterion.

AAO agreed with the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the leading or critical role criterion.

AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the step-one threshold of three criteria. AAO added an advisory observation that the aggregate record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.

The Petitioner did not pursue the high salary criterion on appeal, so AAO deemed the issue waived and did not address it.

The new evidence does not establish eligibility at the time of filing. Foreign immigration benefits for 'highly skilled or talented persons' are not shown to be comparable to EB-1A classification. Additional UN internship documentation does not alter the already-decided conclusion that the internship was neither leading nor critical. Late-submitted evidence the Petitioner could have presented years ago does not establish proper cause for reopening.

AAO found no error in the June 2020 decision. The Petitioner's claims about UN/bar association roles were already addressed in prior decisions and were not raised in the November 2019 motion that was before AAO in June 2020. The discretionary waiver argument was already rebutted in prior decisions and is unsupported by any statute, regulation, or policy. The due process claim was already rejected, and the Petitioner's restatement of it does not establish legal error.

AAO found no error in its prior analysis that the first Dhanasar prong requires the proposed endeavor to have broader implications rising to the level of a substantial positive economic effect. The record's evidence of potential employment of 4–8 direct workers and indirect contribution to up to 44 jobs, and general statements about U.S.-Brazil trade, lacked sufficient detail and probative value to establish national importance.

AAO explicitly reserved its opinion on the second Dhanasar prong because the first prong was not met, making resolution of the second prong unnecessary to the outcome.