检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The AAO found the Petitioner's evidence — including letters praising his past work and a business plan projecting only three initial employees — did not demonstrate broader implications for the field beyond individual client relationships. Letters from references lacked specificity as to broader economic or industry-wide impact, and articles on the importance of the broader field did not speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor.

Because the first prong was dispositive, the AAO declined to reach and reserved determination on the second prong.

AAO found that neither PMI nor SINTESP was shown to require at minimum a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent for membership, so they do not qualify as 'professional associations' under the regulatory definition.

Because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the six evidentiary criteria, AAO found it unnecessary to conduct a final merits analysis.

AAO agreed with the Director's overall conclusion that national importance was not established, but noted the Director's statement about continuing employment constituting legal error. AAO found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit (reversing the Director on that sub-point) but does not have national importance because the evidence speaks to the importance of the aviation field generally, not the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's training activities. A labor shortage alone does not render an endeavor nationally important, and the Petitioner did not show his training methods differ from or improve upon existing methods.

AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision. Education, skills, and knowledge alone do not position a petitioner to advance their endeavor. The Petitioner's articles lacked evidence of significance or citation impact, her personal plan did not detail how she has impacted or intends to advance her endeavor, her job offers were not connected to the proposed endeavor, and evidence submitted after the filing date could not be considered.

AAO found substantial merit but not national importance. While recognizing the nursing shortage, AAO held that occupational shortages do not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under Dhanasar, and that the Petitioner failed to explain how her specific nursing, auditing, and data analysis work would have broader implications for the field rather than just filling a workforce gap.

The Petitioner's Brazilian nursing diploma equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree, not a higher degree. Her lato sensus enrollment did not result in a graduate credential. Her post-baccalaureate nursing work experience amounts to only about 18 months (April 2016–August 2017 and August 2022–February 2023), far short of the five years required.

AAO found that the recommendation letters provided only generic attestations of job performance without specific examples of broad field impact, that the record lacked a detailed business plan or description of how the proposed endeavor would operate, and that the Petitioner's personal assertions without corroborating evidence were insufficient.

AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence addressed the trucking industry in general rather than the national importance of his specific Florida-based freight shipping business. The driver shortage argument was unavailing because such shortages are addressed through the labor certification process. Revenue and employment projections were not shown to provide 'substantial positive economic effects' at a level commensurate with national importance.