检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO concluded that the Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance of his proposed work to advance U.S. scientific interests demonstrates contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.

The AAO affirmed the Director, finding that the Petitioner's appeal brief essentially repeated NOID response arguments verbatim without addressing the Director's findings or providing supporting evidence. The record did not show the endeavor's prospective impact would extend beyond the Petitioner's agency or clients to impact the dental, nutrition, or home healthcare field at a level commensurate with national importance, nor did it establish significant potential to employ U.S. workers or produce substantial positive economic effects.

AAO found that the proposed endeavor of providing patient care, filling a vacant dental position, educating dental surgeons, and monitoring dental workers does not rise to the level of broader implications within the field as contemplated by Dhanasar. Petitioner's arguments focused on the importance of the dental industry generally rather than on how the specific endeavor would have national importance. AAO also rejected the expanded endeavor description (oral health public seminars/streaming) added in the RFE response as a material change presenting facts that did not exist at the time of filing.

AAO found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked national importance because she provided only broad, general industry statistics without establishing a specific connection between her individual research chemical engineering services and national-level economic or employment impacts. AAO noted the inquiry focuses on the specific endeavor, not the importance of the field generally, and the record did not show her work would extend beyond her own employers to impact industries or the economy broadly.

AAO concluded the evidence does not establish that the proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to national importance or substantial positive regional economic effects. The threat assessment reports the cost of illicit drug use rather than the benefit of treatment, the survey data does not connect to the Beneficiary's specific endeavor, and the research project proposal post-dates filing and cannot establish eligibility.

AAO concluded the Petitioner's generalized description of CFO duties and reliance on industry-wide discussion of CFOs did not address her specific proposed endeavor or show broader implications rising to national importance.

AAO found that the proposed endeavor does not rise to national importance under Dhanasar. The record does not establish how any process improvements would produce national or global implications, how the employer gaining a market share would translate to the United States gaining a market share, or that job creation would be in an economically depressed area or reach a level sufficient to demonstrate national importance.

AAO found the record does not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and the Director's failure to address this threshold issue rendered the decision insufficient for review, warranting a remand.

The AAO declined to reach the second prong because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the first prong, making further analysis unnecessary.

The AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the first prong, making further analysis unnecessary.