检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO agreed with the director's ultimate conclusion but corrected the factual error: the alternative requirement is a bachelor's degree plus two years of experience (not two months). Because this alternative falls below the master's-degree or bachelor's-plus-five-years threshold, the labor certification does not satisfy the advanced-degree requirement.

AAO concluded on de novo review that the petitioner established it is more likely than not that the beneficiary had all the required qualifications as of the priority date, and that the beneficiary's credentials match the terms of the labor certification.

AAO affirmed that USCIS must examine the plain language of the labor certification job requirements and cannot ignore any term. The labor certification required a master's degree with no alternative combination of education and experience permitted, so the beneficiary — who holds only the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree — does not satisfy the job requirements.

Even assuming the beneficiary could qualify via bachelor's equivalent plus five years' experience, and even if the labor certification permitted such substitution (which it does not), the petitioner only documented three years of qualifying experience — one year from one employer, two years from another — falling short of the required five years.

AAO agreed with EDGE and the director that the three-year B.S. plus two-year M.S. from India equals only a U.S. bachelor's degree. A three-year bachelor's degree cannot be a 'foreign equivalent degree' to a U.S. baccalaureate, and combining multiple lesser degrees yields only an 'equivalent' rather than a 'foreign equivalent degree.' The conflicting credential evaluations were resolved in favor of EDGE as a reliable peer-reviewed source.

Because the petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability, substantial benefit could not be assumed. The evidence showed his expected impact was limited to South Florida music projects rather than major venues, national recordings, film/television, or national-level songwriting.

AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed step 1, though it noted the evidence was not indicative of top-of-field expertise.

The evidence did not show that the beneficiary's specific work as part of a team of numerous digital animators was of major significance to the field. The support letter failed to provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's digital animation work significantly impacted the industry. The mere fact of participating on a large team to create successful games does not demonstrate that her specific work had 'major significance' in the field.

While the employer's distinguished reputation was established, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for the company as a whole. The petitioner failed to submit organizational charts or similar evidence showing the beneficiary's position within the company hierarchy, and the support letter did not explain how her role was leading or critical relative to other Design Specialists or top executives. The same deficiencies applied to alleged roles at other companies.

The beneficiary's wages of approximately $53,000 in 2010 and 2011 were below the fully competent (Level 4) prevailing wage and significantly below industry survey averages for workers with three or more years of experience. Comparison to entry-level wages was inappropriate given the beneficiary's years of experience, and a salary only slightly above the average for her gender does not constitute a high salary in relation to others in the field.