检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The returns reflected negative net income and negative net current assets for both 2016 and 2017. The Petitioner's S-corporation election meant the more accurate income figure was -$51,271 on Schedule K line 18, not the $138,465 asserted by the Petitioner. Wages paid to the Beneficiary ($85,129.70 in 2016; $86,181.80 in 2017) were below the $112,000 proffered wage, leaving residual gaps of $26,870.30 and $25,818.20 that the financial statements did not cover.

Though the Petitioner had been in continuous operation since 1996 and employed 57 people as of Q1 2018, gross revenues and wages paid declined from 2016 to 2017. The Beneficiary would not replace a current employee. The Petitioner had not demonstrated an outstanding industry reputation and still faced the burden of combined proffered wages for multiple petitions.

AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the initial evidence threshold of at least three criteria.

AAO agreed the criterion was not met and declined to treat the books as comparable evidence. Because the Petitioner had already met three criteria, the comparable evidence provision was inapplicable, and the Petitioner did not explain why collections of personal photographs with autobiographical narratives should be considered comparable to scholarly articles in professional or major trade media.

AAO found that acclaim was short-lived and concentrated in 2015–2017, that the qualifying awards were limited to young or emerging photographers rather than being open competitions, and that later works lacked evidence of broad critical or commercial success. The overall record established appreciation in Chinese arts circles but not sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

The Petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation establishing that the award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, such as media articles showing the competition's significance.

The comparative salary data in the record did not include information on directors of graphic design or account for the Beneficiary's level of expertise and experience. Indeed data showed salaries as high as $175,000 for senior digital graphic designers, exceeding the Beneficiary's 2017 salary of $155,000. The evidence was insufficient to show the Beneficiary commanded a high salary relative to others performing similar services.

The articles discuss the Beneficiary's company and only briefly mention him, but are not specifically about him. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this criterion, and the AAO therefore did not address whether the publications qualify as major media.

The record contained only a 2017 annual report that did not reflect the Petitioner's separate financials, with no regulatory-required evidence for 2018 onward from the priority date. AAO raised this as an independent and alternative ground for dismissal.

AAO agreed that the diploma date of November 2013 controlled, but engaged in a more thorough analysis: unlike in Matter of O-A- Inc., the Petitioner provided no provisional certificate or equivalent official academic record contemporaneous with 2005 degree completion. Marks statements only confirm exam dates; the principal's letters were written 13+ years after the fact and outside the university's normal course of business; and the credential evaluation alone is insufficient without case-specific official academic records of completion.