检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The AAO agreed with the director that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence to minimally meet this criterion.

The petitioner's Form I-290B statement made only generic assertions that the evidence was sufficient and that the decision misapplied law and policy, without engaging the director's specific findings on any of the regulatory criteria.

The AAO found the submitted evaluations unpersuasive because they failed to address the actual courses of study, the rationale for credit assignments was unsubstantiated, the evaluations conflicted with each other, and none were peer-reviewed. The AAO instead relied on AACRAO EDGE, which indicates that an Indian three-year B.S. is comparable to two to three years of U.S. university study and that an Indian M.S. is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Therefore the beneficiary's education amounts to a U.S. bachelor's degree at most, which does not satisfy the labor certification's requirement of a master's degree.

AAO concluded it was more likely than not that the beneficiary had the education specified on the ETA Form 9089 as of the priority date, withdrawing that portion of the director's decision.

The beneficiary's stated employment history was riddled with irreconcilable inconsistencies: dates on the ETA Form 9089 contradicted later submissions, an entire employer (Syntel Ltd.) was omitted from the labor certification, and supporting letters corroborated the now-repudiated version of the work history. No independent objective evidence resolved these inconsistencies, so the petitioner failed to establish the required five years of experience.

The AAO found that even crediting the claim that the petitioner introduced the concept of social capital in her field, the record lacked evidence that this was a contribution of major significance, that papers in her field cited her as the originator, and that contributions to preparedness plans were not contributions to the field of environmental education. Furthermore, the regulation requires contributions in the plural, and the petitioner only demonstrated at most a single contribution.

The AAO declined to consider new evidence about Penn State and the Center for Environment Education raised for the first time on appeal. For Columbia/LDEO, the letters described the petitioner's activities within LDEO but did not show a leading or critical role for Columbia University as a whole. For USDAFS, the evidence showed a critical role on a specific project but not for USDAFS as a whole, and the USDAFS's distinguished reputation was not established. For NAAEE, the evidence showed only short-term consulting and did not establish a leading or critical role or distinguished reputation.

Although EDGE confirms the CIMA credential represents a level of education comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree, the regulation requires a degree from a college or university. The CIMA is a professional credentialing body, not an academic institution, and therefore cannot confer the requisite foreign equivalent degree. Expert evaluations concluding equivalency are advisory only and do not override the regulatory degree requirement.

The AAO found this ground for denial independently on appeal. The work experience letters on record do not demonstrate 120 months of experience in a financial manager role or as assistant treasurer/director of investments, and the petitioner stated the beneficiary gained none of the required experience with the petitioning employer.

The petitioner did not contest the director's findings or offer additional arguments regarding this criterion on appeal, and therefore abandoned the claim.