检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO does not reach prong two because the prong-one failure is dispositive of the NIW analysis.

AAO adopts and affirms the Director's prong-one determination, finding the Petitioner's claims about industry-wide and economic benefits to be conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by evidence demonstrating broader impact on the field.

AAO found the projected staffing (Petitioner plus two employees) and $7M five-year gross revenue insufficient for substantial positive economic effects; expert NAHB-based ripple-effect statements did not address the Petitioner's specific endeavor; the 'at risk' EIG designation lacked supporting context; the $350K-$400K townhomes were not shown to be marketed to low-income households; and the claimed innovative construction methods were not specified or shown to disseminate beyond his own projects.

AAO did not separately analyze prong two; it noted that the Petitioner's qualifications relate to prong two but treated the prong-one failure as dispositive.

AAO credited the experience letters and concluded the Petitioner has substantially more than the required five years of progressive experience in civil engineering.

AAO agreed that the Petitioner's proposed work as an international commercial manager failed to demonstrate national importance. Her evidence relied on general industry reports and conclusory assertions rather than showing broader implications specific to her endeavor. Her qualifications and recommendations addressed her expertise but not the prospective impact on the field, and post-filing employment evidence could not be considered.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. The consulting services benefit individual clients only and the evidence does not demonstrate broader field-wide impact, original innovations distinguishable from existing methods, or substantial positive economic effects at a national level. Industry reports about supply chain importance do not establish the importance of the specific endeavor, and projections in the business plan lacked sufficient basis.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner failed to show impacts beyond her immediate students or employer's school district, her CV-cited curriculum work post-dated the petition filing, recommendation letters addressed only past accomplishments rather than the proposed endeavor's broader impact, and no significant economic effects were demonstrated.

AAO agreed that the Petitioner's substantial merit was established but that national importance was not. The general importance of the legal/tax consulting industry, immigrant entrepreneurship, or the Petitioner's personal skills and experience are not a substitute for demonstrating the specific prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's claims of economic benefits were unsupported by evidence of scale commensurate with national importance, and his HUBZone and worker-shortage arguments were unsubstantiated or legally inapt.

AAO disagreed with the Director on substantial merit, finding that the record did show the Petitioner would apply strategic sales approaches to expand sales bases and benefit financial technology companies, with potential to improve U.S. business sales and create jobs. However, AAO agreed with the Director that national importance was not established because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the specific scope or prospective national-level impact of her venture — the record lacked information on revenue generated, number of clients served, or overall size of proposed activities.