检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO found that the Petitioner properly filed the labor certification from California and was not required to identify the Beneficiary's specific telecommuting location. The labor certification's telecommuting notation was sufficient notice to DOL.

AAO declined to accept the treasurer's letter because it conflated the Petitioner's employee count with group affiliates, failing to establish that the Petitioner alone employs 100 or more workers. The record also lacked 2018 financial documentation, and the Petitioner could not rely on affiliates' financials. The matter was remanded for the Director to clarify ability to pay in light of multiple I-140 filings.

AAO agreed that theatre reviews mentioning the Petitioner as creator do not constitute material 'about' her, as they do not discuss her career, background, or other personal elements. Articles in which she is merely quoted are also not about her. The blog interview was not shown to be related to her profession or major media, and the screenwriting competition profile was not shown to appear in a qualifying publication.

AAO found that while the Petitioner held leading or critical roles for certain organizations (a theatre company, a film festival, and a theatre), none of those organizations were shown to have a distinguished reputation. The theatre company was too new (founded 2017) and its individual award recipients—not the company itself—received the local awards. The film festival was not established to have a distinguished reputation at the national or international level. Volunteer, columnist, and judging roles for other organizations were not shown to be leading or critical.

AAO found that the screenwriting website targeted not only professional writers but also aspiring writers, students, and amateurs, so it is not a professional or major trade publication, and articles on it are not scholarly articles for 'learned persons.' The film review website lacked evidence of target audience or circulation. The Academy Report article lacked evidence that membership is exclusive to professionals, and its subject (film preservation) and readership did not support classification as a scholarly article for the screenwriting and story consultancy field.

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's adapted plays performed at theatre festivals satisfy criterion (vii).

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's documented service as a judge at film festivals and screenplay competitions satisfied criterion (iv).

AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, though it noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.

AAO found that while the Petitioner has produced original works and successfully consulted on many projects, the evidence did not show that her work has widely influenced or impacted the broader field of playwriting, screenwriting, or story consulting beyond individual projects or single organizations. Letters praising her work did not articulate field-wide impact, and the academic citations referenced her websites rather than her professional columns.

Although the Beneficiary appears to have more than five years of relevant work experience, that experience cannot qualify as post-baccalaureate experience under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) because the Beneficiary lacks a qualifying foreign equivalent baccalaureate degree.