检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence—a university letter dated 14 years after the events in question—was not an official academic record issued in the normal course of business. Moreover, the letter did not confirm that passing the degree examination completed all degree requirements. Without an official academic record predating July 23, 2003, the experience must be measured from the diploma date, leaving the Beneficiary short of the required five years.

AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed research to improve plastic surgery techniques has substantial merit and national importance because the results are disseminated broadly through medical journals and conferences and have broader implications for healthcare. However, AAO noted that the Petitioner's clinical work alone did not meet the national importance element without evidence of broader impact beyond the patients he serves.

AAO rejected this argument because under DOL regulations, experience with the petitioning employer cannot be used to qualify a beneficiary for the offered position unless it was in a position not substantially comparable to the offered role. The Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner was in the offered job itself.

AAO held that while an official academic record is not limited to a diploma, the Petitioner still failed to produce an official academic record showing the Beneficiary completed all substantive degree requirements and received university approval before June 30, 2008. The registrar's letter was not contemporaneous, was issued on request rather than in the normal course of business, stated only that the Beneficiary was 'eligible' for the degree, and did not confirm university approval. The transcript contradicted the Petitioner's claim by still describing the Beneficiary as pursuing his degree in 2006/2007, and the credentials evaluation twice stated the degree was awarded June 30, 2008.

AAO held that EB-2 regulations reference 'degrees' not 'diplomas,' and that an official academic record — including a provisional certificate — can establish the degree date. The provisional certificate dated March 21, 2007 certified that the Beneficiary had completed all substantive requirements and the degree was approved, placing the degree date at March 21, 2007.

With the degree dated to March 21, 2007, the Beneficiary's eight years of work experience in software engineering (ending September 2014) provided over five years of qualifying post-baccalaureate progressive experience well before the priority date of January 25, 2016.

AAO found, upon de novo review of the full record including new appellate evidence, that the Petitioner more likely than not had the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date.

The labor certification stated the Beneficiary works 'with' senior management (not under them) and requires strategic planning experience. State registrations listed him as corporate secretary (2013–2016), CEO (2016), and president (2013–2014), establishing senior management involvement.

The record indicated approximately 40% ownership based on documented share issuances, not 2.28% as claimed. The Beneficiary's shares carried voting rights per a written agreement, and no corroboration existed for the assertion that all employees received stock options. The Beneficiary also had a prior indirect ownership interest through a Colombian company before the 2013 sale.

The Form I-140 stated eight employees; on appeal the Petitioner claimed 12. Either figure places the Beneficiary among a small number of employees.