检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The phrase 'in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics' in section 203(b)(1)(A) is not superfluous and excludes the general practice of law. The petitioner did not show he intends to work as corporate counsel, in-house counsel, law professor, or legal researcher — the only lawyer roles that could conceivably fall within the enumerated fields.

The AAO found that the petitioner's impact was limited to his local school district and did not extend to a national level. Reference letters praised his local contributions but did not establish national-scope impact. General evidence about the importance of STEM education addressed only intrinsic merit, not national scope. The NCLBA did not modify or supersede NYSDOT, and counsel's arguments about the national scope of education reform did not establish that this individual teacher's work was national in scope.

The AAO found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his past record of achievement shows influence on the field as a whole or that he would benefit the national interest to a substantially greater degree than a similarly qualified U.S. worker. Awards had only local or institutional significance, reference letters addressed only local impact, and special training or certifications do not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The NYSDOT guidelines do not require USCIS to identify a comparable U.S. worker; the burden rests with the petitioner.

The AAO agreed that the petitioner's work as a Science and GTT Teacher is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.

The AAO withdrew the director's favorable finding because the petitioner failed to show the award was nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, and because the criterion requires more than one award. Academic awards also do not qualify as they relate to training rather than the field of endeavor.

The petitioner's patents, articles, and books did not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Citation counts were low and unindicative of major significance. Support letters were vague and solicited. The single book relied upon on appeal showed limited use at only two universities and the petitioner's role was as a cooperator, not an author. The regulation also requires more than one original contribution of major significance.

The petitioner's evidence of credentials, evaluations, and community involvement does not demonstrate that she has influenced her field as a whole or has achieved more than other similarly qualified teachers. The labor certification process is the appropriate avenue for addressing worker shortages, and NYSDOT does not require an item-by-item comparison but does require a record of influence on the field as a whole.

The labor certification requires only a bachelor's degree and 12 months of experience, falling short of the advanced-degree threshold under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

The two evaluations contradicted each other on the equivalency of the three-year bachelor's degree, undermining their reliability. AACRAO EDGE determined the combination of the three-year bachelor's and two-year master's was only equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. USCIS does not consider a three-year degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree per Matter of Shah.

The petitioner's credentials (Master's degree, state certifications, teaching experience) are held by a large proportion of special educators in the United States—approximately 59% hold a Master's degree and 92% are fully certified—so her qualifications do not stand apart from those of most others in her field. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a past record of influence on the field as a whole that would justify a waiver.