检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO found that the letters focused on the Beneficiary's role and value to the Petitioner rather than broader industry impact, that the expert letter improperly characterized the national importance of the profession rather than the specific endeavor, and that the submitted articles did not mention the Beneficiary or his specific projects. The evidence failed to show how the Beneficiary's specific proposed work would impact the industry more broadly or produce substantial positive economic effects.

AAO acknowledged evidence of team membership but found the descriptions of selection criteria insufficient — the letter referenced unspecified time standards and undefined 'outstanding performance' — so the record did not establish that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.

AAO found that untranslated foreign-language inscriptions on medals could not be considered, and the remaining letters and articles lacked detail on award criteria, points, and competitor limitations needed to determine the awards were for excellence in the field.

AAO explicitly reserved this issue because the failure to meet Dhanasar prong one is dispositive.

AAO reserved this criterion because the failure under criteria (i) and (ii) was dispositive.

AAO found the Petitioner's citation record (19 total citations, self-citations not separated) insufficient to show national importance. Expert letters praised the Petitioner's past work but did not adequately address the specific proposed endeavor or explain how it would extend beyond her employer and its clients to impact the field more broadly. General industry evidence on cybersecurity importance did not speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found it lacks national importance. The submitted data and articles addressed the importance of small businesses and taxes in general rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The projected tax payments and employment figures are not significantly high relative to the industry, and the company's training activities would not extend beyond individual trainees to address IT professional shortages at a level of national importance. The company's offerings are not shown to be unique, innovative, or to have national or global implications.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found insufficient evidence that the impact of the specific app or business would extend beyond the Petitioner's clients. Support letters addressed past professional accomplishments rather than prospective broader impact, industry reports discussed the field generally, and financial/staffing projections lacked a sufficient basis to demonstrate substantial impact. The claimed ripple effects on national healthcare costs were not substantiated at a scale of national importance.

AAO disagreed with the Director's finding on substantial merit, concluding the endeavor does have substantial merit in business and health. However, AAO agreed that national importance was not established, finding that the evidence showed only recognition within the Petitioner and by other individuals but did not demonstrate broader field-wide impact. Support letters from past employers praised the Beneficiary's skills but did not explain how his work would extend beyond the Petitioner's customers. Evidence of Executive Orders and industry articles addressed general national issues rather than the specific proposed endeavor.

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact does not extend beyond her future clients to impact the field of pediatric physical therapy at a national importance level. The Petitioner provided no independent, corroborating evidence (such as documents regarding potential partners and possible clients) to support her broader impact or economic effect claims.