检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found the Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor has broader implications or substantial positive economic effects beyond benefiting his individual clients.

The AAO found the Petitioner established substantial merit (reversing the Director) but agreed he failed to establish national importance. The Petitioner's statements focused on his personal experience rather than the prospective impact of his specific endeavor, and his recommendation letters spoke to his technical competencies rather than the national importance of his proposed work. Working in the oil and gas field as a petroleum engineer expert is insufficient, without more, to demonstrate national importance.

AAO disagreed with the Director on the substantial merit sub-issue, finding that the English portions of the business plan, expert opinion, cited materials, and Petitioner's statements sufficiently established potential for revenues, U.S. jobs, and addressing a nursing shortage. However, AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show national importance: the projected $1.8 million in revenues and 11 direct jobs did not demonstrate substantial national or regional economic impact, the HUBZone claim lacked evidentiary support, the indirect job projection was internally contradictory, and the record did not show that the business would advance the U.S. home health care field more broadly.

The Petitioner argued on appeal that the Director failed to consider comparable evidence for this criterion, but AAO did not resolve the question because the Petitioner had already satisfied three criteria.

AAO found the Director overlooked evidence that the Petitioner co-authored an article published in the International Annals of Criminology in 2018, confirmed both in the article itself and in a supporting co-author letter.

The Petitioner argued on appeal that the Director made factual errors in evaluating this criterion, but AAO did not resolve the question because the Petitioner had already satisfied three criteria.

AAO found the Director erred by failing to address whether F- has a distinguished reputation, and withdrew that determination. AAO found that the Petitioner did not substantiate F-'s reputation with sufficient documentary evidence, and that the evidence was also insufficient for K- and E-.

AAO agreed that while the endeavor has merit, the Petitioner failed to show that his specific proposed work as an area manager would have prospective impact beyond his clients and employers rising to the level of national importance. Expert letters discussed the importance of area managers generally but did not articulate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications. Personal qualifications and experience are relevant to the second prong, not the first.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found the Petitioner failed to show its prospective impact rises to national importance. The record lacked adequate evidence of broader implications beyond her patients and customers, or substantial positive economic effects. AAO also noted that the Petitioner's personal qualifications and experience are relevant to prong two, not prong one, and that the importance of the broader nutrition field cannot substitute for showing the specific endeavor's national importance.

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's evidence failed to connect her specific consulting endeavor to a demonstrably substantial economic benefit at the national or regional level. While the importance of government initiatives supporting SMEs and financial literacy is not disputed, working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner provided no objective evidence of the projected impact of her business beyond generalized claims.