检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO explicitly reserved determination on the second prong because the first prong failure was dispositive of the appeal.

The Petitioner did not raise specific objections to SCOPS' finding on the third prong either in response to the NOID or on the Form I-290B, so AAO deemed this prong waived on appeal.

The Petitioner did not raise specific objections to SCOPS' finding on the second prong either in response to the NOID or on the Form I-290B, so AAO deemed this prong waived on appeal.

AAO found that while the proposed endeavor falls within areas recognized as having potential merit (business, entrepreneurialism), the Petitioner failed to show the national importance of the endeavor. SCOPS properly considered the full scope of the endeavor as described in the RFE response, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the endeavor's prospective impact rises to a level of national importance — i.e., broader field or national implications beyond her own consulting firm and clientele.

The record shows the Petitioner promoted the Beneficiary to a new position (PCS 4) with a different title, higher wage, and increased experience requirements before filing the petition, demonstrating it did not intend to employ her in the DOL-certified PCS 3 job. Precedential decisions from the Ninth Circuit and BIA support revocation where the offered job departs from the labor certification's terms. The USCIS policy and Q&A the Petitioner cited either have less legal authority than case law or address successor-in-interest situations inapplicable here.

The Beneficiary attested to approximately six years of qualifying pre-Petitioner experience by the priority date, while the new PCS 4 job requires eight years. Additionally, experience gained while working for the Petitioner cannot be counted under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3) absent conditions not claimed. Therefore, the record fails to establish the Beneficiary meets the new position's experience requirements.

AAO held that SCOPS applied the wrong legal standard—requiring identity rather than 'same or similar'—and withdrew the denial. However, AAO could not make a positive finding on the current record because the significant shift in management versus development responsibilities (20% to 50% management; 60% to 20% development), the absence of a prevailing wage determination, and the lack of job advertisements left open whether the IT Manager role constitutes a materially different occupational classification.

AAO found the Petitioner failed to establish impracticality of obtaining a labor certification (his doctoral student position is temporary and he is qualified for permanent employment), failed to show the U.S. would benefit even if other qualified workers are available, and failed to show urgency warranting foregoing the labor certification process. While STEM and critical/emerging technology factors weigh positively, they do not alone satisfy the third prong.

AAO found the social media follower counts and download numbers did not equate to sustained national or international acclaim, and the Petitioner had not shown her songs or shows achieved commercial success levels compared to other percussionists or singers in the salsa genre.

AAO found that while the Petitioner demonstrated musical talent and a unique performance style, the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that she has risen to the very top of the field. Awards lacked national/international recognition beyond presenting organizations; media coverage lacked transcripts and significance; judging was limited to one informal competition; contributions lacked major significance; performances did not generate documented acclaim; and social media metrics did not equate to the required level of acclaim.