检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed consulting services would not extend sufficiently beyond his individual employers and clients to impact the business administration field or U.S. economy at the national level. The single prospective client letter lacked key details about location, company size, and scope, preventing assessment of potential economic impact. General evidence about the importance of small businesses did not show the specific endeavor had national importance.

AAO disagreed with and withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that while the Petitioner has relevant education, skills, and knowledge, these alone do not place him well-positioned to advance his endeavor. The Petitioner had not demonstrated progress toward the endeavor in the United States, and his work experience letters reflected competent past performance abroad but did not show he was well-situated to advance the specific proposed endeavor.

AAO agreed with the Director that, while the endeavor has substantial merit in business, the Petitioner failed to show broader implications beyond his immediate employer(s) or customers. The expert letters relied on the importance of the facility management industry rather than addressing the specific endeavor's national or global implications, and the Petitioner's generalized conclusory statements lacked sufficient probative value.

AAO agreed that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, merely working as a nurse addressing a workforce shortage does not establish national importance. The evidence did not show how her specific work would impact the nursing field or healthcare industry beyond her employers and patients, nor did her educational activities or expert opinion establish broader prospective impact.

AAO disagreed with the Director on substantial merit, finding industry reports sufficient to establish that aspect; however, AAO agreed the endeavor lacked national importance. The Petitioner's activities would only benefit his prospective employers, the shortage argument misapplies Dhanasar, government interest in technology broadly does not establish national importance of the specific endeavor, and expert/recommendation letters addressed past accomplishments rather than prospective national impact.

The AAO agreed that while the endeavor had merit, the Petitioner failed to show national importance. His personal expertise and skills were relevant to prong two, not prong one; his training plans lacked broader field-level impact; he did not show his solutions differed from or improved upon existing ones; his economic benefit claims were speculative and unsupported; and pointing to the importance of the financial services technology industry is insufficient to establish national importance of his specific endeavor.

AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence relates primarily to her own credentials and the general industry rather than the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor. The business plan's staffing and revenue projections lacked independent corroboration, and even if realized, they would not demonstrate national importance.

AAO found that while the endeavor may have merit, the Petitioner did not demonstrate prospective impact beyond his clientele to the broader transportation or financial services field, and did not show substantial positive economic effects through staffing, business activity, or tax revenue, even in the assertedly distressed area.

AAO agreed the endeavor lacked national importance. The industry reports were not in the record (only website addresses were submitted), and even if substantiated, the broad industry figures could not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The projected 10 low-wage jobs in a non-depressed local tourism market did not carry the broader implications required under Dhanasar.

AAO reserved the third prong as unnecessary to the ultimate decision, having already found the Petitioner ineligible under the first and second prongs.