检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

The Petitioner's business administration degree does not relate to skydiving instruction. The course completion certificates from skydiving organizations do not indicate those organizations are institutions of learning.

Only ~6.5 years of qualifying employment as a skydiving instructor were documented; the earlier ~3.5 years involved duties such as video editing that were not 'in the occupation' of skydiving instruction.

The USPA achievement certificates recognize accumulated skydiving experience, not significant contributions to the field. Recommendation letters praised the Petitioner's abilities but did not identify specific contributions. The Petitioner's certificates are achievement awards, not service awards judged by the USPA board.

AAO did not separately contest the Director's finding on prong 2; the decision references the Director's conclusion on this prong without disagreement.

AAO found the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her specific business endeavor, not the importance of pet insurance, small businesses, entrepreneurism, or immigration generally. The record did not show how her business would extend beyond prospective clients to impact the industry or U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance, nor did it show significant potential to employ U.S. workers or provide substantial positive economic effects.

AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner confused the importance of the broader field and industry with the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's consulting services for a small set of clients, with modest revenue projections ($37K–$126K) and minimal employment creation (one to possibly three positions), did not show broader implications rising to the level of national importance or substantial positive economic effects.

AAO agreed the Petitioner did not establish advanced degree status. The foreign architecture/urban planning and environmental management credentials lacked equivalency evaluations and could not be assessed. The employer letters for the law specialty lacked required duty descriptions, progressive work narrative, and clear dates; a conciliator certificate was ambiguous as to duration and nature of work; and self-created evidence like the résumé was given limited probative weight.

AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor (work for one aircraft maintenance company in Florida) would have broader implications or national impact. Generalized assertions about the aviation industry, government initiatives, and the Petitioner's experience did not establish prospective national impact of his specific proposed work.

AAO agrees the Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor, instead broadly claiming she would conduct research in computational materials science, quantum computing, and QIST, without elaborating on the type of research she intended to pursue.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit (potential to generate revenue and create jobs) but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. The record at time of filing did not support claims of helping other U.S. businesses, the Petitioner did not specify innovations or solutions, and the projected 27 employees across six locations were insufficient to demonstrate significant national or local economic impact even in HUBZones.