检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO did not disturb the Director's finding that the judging criterion was met.

Because the Petitioner's appeal contested only the final merits determination and did not rebut the Director's finding on this criterion, the AAO deemed it waived.

The AAO reserved the formal final merits determination because the threshold criteria count was not met, though it noted in dicta that the record does not support acclaim at the required level.

The AAO did not disturb the Director's favorable finding for the display criterion.

AAO did not address the second prong, as the first prong was found dispositive.

The Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence such as tax records or paystubs for his earnings claims, the earnings reports lacked a verifiable source, the Glassdoor comparison data was based on only six anonymous submissions covering salaries in Brazil rather than where the Petitioner appears to work, and the Petitioner did not explain how the comparison is relevant to his remuneration structure.

The Petitioner's Sport Referee's Record Book alone is insufficient without corroborating evidence such as event-specific credentials or official records. The evidence does not establish that a cycling referee's duties involve judging the work of competitors rather than enforcing rules. New evidence including the retranslation submitted on appeal was not considered because the Petitioner had prior notice and opportunity to submit it.

The Cyclingnews.com articles mention the Petitioner but are not about him—they are about race results and team selections. The Na Vyrost article lacks an author and date, and the publication appears to be local or regional rather than major media. The Petitioner also failed to establish Cyclingnews.com's major status.

AAO found that the Petitioner's general assertions about the benefits of dentistry, market statistics, and vague claims about disseminating knowledge lacked specific corroborated details. The FDOH communication was solicited by the Petitioner and did not constitute active recruitment or an attestation of national importance. The Petitioner's practice would serve only a limited number of patients, analogous to Dhanasar's teaching example.

The AAO agreed the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. The focus must be on the specific proposed endeavor—owning and operating a skills-training business for disadvantaged women—not on broader topics like gender equality. The Petitioner's business plan contained no employment projections and projected only $155K in first-year revenue, which was insufficient to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at a national level. The record did not show broader implications beyond the Petitioner's local prospective clients in the South Carolina area. The AAO also declined to consider a revised business plan submitted for the first time on appeal.