检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO finds substantial merit is not in dispute but concludes national importance is not established because the proposed endeavor is defined through work for a specific employer, and assertions of wider impact are not corroborated by sufficient evidence of broader field-level or economic implications.

AAO found the Petitioner's arguments focused on the general importance of the telecommunications/fiber optics industry rather than on how his specific individual company's services would produce broader regional or national impacts. His business plan figures were unsupported and insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects at a national level, and his support letters addressed only his personal skills rather than the national importance of the endeavor itself.

The AAO did not separately address the high salary criterion; it was noted only as one of two criteria SCOPS found met, and the AAO's analysis focused on withdrawing the judging criterion finding and evaluating the criteria argued on appeal.

The AAO found the Petitioner's unsupported assertions about comparable evidence were insufficient, and that he failed to produce original conference programs or reliable evidence confirming his presentations, leaving the authenticity of his claimed participation in question.

The AAO agreed that the Petitioner's work, while showing adoption by a few entities, did not demonstrate broad influence over the field as a whole. The expert letters lacked specific details explaining unusual influence or high impact, and the conference presentation record was unverified and non-specific.

Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner submitted evidence of participation as a judge of others' work in his field.

Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through his 45 peer-reviewed research articles.

AAO found SCOPS erred by discounting detailed, corroborated expert letters from independent researchers describing the Petitioner's development of novel polymer-based nanodiscs, which revolutionized the study of membrane proteins relevant to diseases like Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, and type-2 diabetes. High citation counts (1,454 citations) and commercialization of patented polymers provided additional support for major significance.

AAO agreed that substantial merit was demonstrated but found that the evidence—including letters of support, citation analysis, and descriptions of research use by others—only showed incremental contributions to the field. The letters failed to explain how the Petitioner's specific individual work rises to national importance, and the broad policy-level evidence addressed the importance of the field generally rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor.

AAO declined to reach the second prong because the failure to meet the first prong was dispositive of the appeal.