检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The Beneficiary's Philippine Bachelor of Science in Occupational Therapy is not the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree, as confirmed by EDGE and inconsistencies among credential evaluations. The labor certification expressly bars alternate combinations of education and experience, so neither the INS memorandum nor the combined education-plus-experience evaluations can establish eligibility. The record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary holds the required degree.

The employment statements and certifications are vague and do not describe the specific duties performed, failing to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). The Beneficiary's unilateral amendment of her résumé is insufficient to establish qualifying employment, and unsupported claims on a résumé do not meet the petitioner's burden of proof. The record therefore does not establish the claimed years of qualifying employment.

The AAO agreed with the Director that the Beneficiary's combined Indian bachelor's and master's degrees equate only to a U.S. bachelor's degree per EDGE and corroborating evaluations. The AAO rejected the Petitioner's claim that the degree was earned in May 2007 or August 6, 2007, noting the actual diploma reflects a convocation date of February 23, 2008 and the registrar's letter did not assert the degree was awarded before convocation. Even accepting August 6, 2007 as the qualifying date, the record only documented 16 months of post-baccalaureate experience, far short of the required 60 months.

AAO found that the Beneficiary's single peer review instance, limited citation impact (10 total citations, four case reports and one retrospective analysis), support letters discussing only future potential rather than recognized field-wide impact, administrative scheduling role with insufficient organizational context, and salary compared only to general physicians (not interventional radiologists specifically) collectively failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

The director found and AAO confirmed that several of the Beneficiary's scholarly articles published in journals, including the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion.

AAO withdrew the director's determination, finding that the Beneficiary's salary is high in relation to others in the wider field of medicine, satisfying the plain language of the criterion.

The director found and AAO confirmed that documentation of the Beneficiary's peer review duties for a publication established that he meets this criterion.

AAO found the Petitioner's memberships, peer review activity, citation record, and reliance by others on his research all fell short of demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field. His peer review was routine, his citation count modest, and the keyword-based article ranking evidence was not probative of recognition in the field.

AAO relied on EDGE (AACRAO) data and two of the four credential evaluations showing the Beneficiary's combined Indian bachelor's and master's degrees equate only to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The remaining two evaluations required supplementing the degrees with five years of work experience to reach U.S. master's equivalence, but the labor certification did not permit an education-plus-experience alternate. No evidence established that the Beneficiary's second year of master's study alone constituted a U.S. master's equivalent.

AAO found that, in the aggregate, the Petitioner's evidence—including articles cited by other researchers, patents citing his work, and reference letters describing laboratories using his crystal structure findings to develop tuberculosis drug discovery initiatives—met the plain language of this criterion.