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 national importance. The record's evidence focused on the Petitioner's past work for former employers and did not demonstrate broader prospective impact on the IT field. The professional plan's claims of economic, societal, and cultural benefits lacked independent documentary support, and the recommendation letters and expert opinion focused on the Petitioner's credentials and fit (second prong) rather than the national importance of the endeavor itself.

AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The projections for job creation were too generalized and the Petitioner relied on the general importance of school safety rather than the specific prospective national impact of her particular endeavor.

AAO reserved the second prong as unnecessary to the ultimate decision because the first prong was dispositive.

AAO reserved the third prong as unnecessary to the ultimate decision because the first prong was dispositive.

AAO found that the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the logistics of her project at a national scale — including how she would recruit participants through pharmacies, collect and organize patient data, or fund the project — and that her claims of broader field impact were not supported by probative evidence.

AAO found that the degree certificate states the Beneficiary was placed in the Higher Second Class in November 2005 but was signed by the vice chancellor and dated February 9, 2011, meaning the degree was conferred on that later date. The examination document and statement of marks show only that the Beneficiary passed his final exams in November 2005, not that the university approved all substantive degree requirements at that time. The university letter written nearly 17 years later was not issued in the normal course of business and lacked corroborating documentation of the substantive degree requirements. Neither credential evaluation adequately explained the seven-month gap between November 2005 examinations and June 2006 documents or provided evidence that the university approved the degree in November 2005.

AAO found the experience letters deficient because they lacked specific duty descriptions, were authored by an accountant rather than a former employer or trainer, and omitted the author's address, all of which are required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g).

AAO did not separately address prong 2, as the failure to meet prong 1 was dispositive.

AAO did not separately address prong 3, as the failure to meet prong 1 was dispositive.

AAO accepted the Director's determination that this criterion was met and did not disturb that finding.