检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary because the Petitioner failed step 1, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of the required acclaim.

The AAO evaluated all evidence in the record—including judging, publications, leading roles, memberships, original contributions, and salary—and found that none demonstrated national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The judging experience was limited to local academic settings, the publication record was sparse, the leading role letters did not show field-wide recognition, and reference letters lacked specifics about citations or attention garnered.

While the record supported a finding of substantial merit (IT and entrepreneurship services), the Petitioner failed to show that his proposed endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of national importance. His recommendation letters addressed his skills rather than broader implications, and his business plan's staffing and sales projections did not demonstrate substantial positive economic effects for Florida or the United States.

The Director found and AAO accepted that the Petitioner authored some scholarly material satisfying the published material criterion.

The Director found and AAO accepted that the Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion by serving as an evaluator on examination boards for student works at various institutions.

The Director found and AAO accepted that the Petitioner serves in a critical position as laboratory coordinator and as First Secretary of a professional organization.

AAO affirmed that the Petitioner's inconsistent job descriptions — clinical duties on the PWD versus supervisory/administrative duties on the labor certification application — were not resolved despite an RFE, precluding a determination that the position requires a professional nurse. The cited USCIS memo does not establish that all supervisory nurses qualify, and the Utah state regulation does not control Schedule A eligibility under federal DOL standards.

AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary to the result given the Schedule A designation finding.

AAO found the Petitioner's PhD, published articles with high citation rates, peer review activity, reference letters attesting to her expertise, and documented research progress collectively established she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.

The Petitioner provided letters of support describing how her research would advance cancer treatment methods, information about cancer's impact on U.S. public health, and documentation that her results are disseminated through scientific journals and conferences, establishing both substantial merit and national importance.