检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO agreed that the proposed benefit of the petitioner's research would have a national impact.

AAO agreed that the petitioner's work as an MRI researcher developing nanoparticle-based contrast agents is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.

The labor certification's H.9 explicitly states that foreign educational equivalents are not accepted. USCIS must apply the plain language of the labor certification as written by the employer and cannot ignore this term. The Kellogg language in H.14 does not override explicit prohibitions, and BALCA precedent cited by counsel is not binding on USCIS. The recruitment materials submitted did not establish a foreign degree was acceptable, and no recruitment report or applicant resumes were provided.

Counsel did not contest the director's findings for this criterion on appeal or offer additional arguments, and therefore the petitioner abandoned this issue.

AAO explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the step-1 requirement of three types of evidence.

AAO found that the beneficiary's four-year-plus-ten-month Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy from the Philippines is a baccalaureate-level degree, not a foreign equivalent of an advanced degree. Credential evaluations by FCCPT and FIS assessed coursework for admissibility and licensure purposes rather than whether the single degree itself exceeds the baccalaureate level, and EDGE—a reliable source USCIS credits for foreign credential equivalencies—confirmed the Philippine five-year physical therapy degree is comparable to a U.S. undergraduate degree. The petitioner also did not assert or prove five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Both the director and AAO found that the petitioner's work as a physician-scientist is in an area of intrinsic merit.

AAO found that the petitioner's citation record was unsupported by submitted evidence, NIH funding does not differentiate her from other capable researchers, publications and presentations lacked evidence of influence on the field, post-filing appointment as Assistant Professor could not be considered, and unique clinical skills do not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The appeal offered no new facts and identified no specific error in the director's decision.

Both the director and AAO found that the proposed benefits of the petitioner's gastroenterology research would be national in scope.

AAO accepted that the beneficiary holds a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, consistent with the director's finding, and did not dispute this point.