检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor lacks national importance. The Petitioner's financial consulting work for small and medium-sized businesses does not demonstrate broader implications for the financial consulting field or the U.S. economy; industry reports spoke to the importance of the field generally, not to impacts specifically attributable to the Petitioner's work; and recommendation letters related to past work for specific clients, not prospective national-level impact.

AAO disagreed with the Director's standard (finding the criterion does not require outstanding achievements judged by experts) but agreed the Petitioner failed to meet the criterion because the record does not show the Regional Council is comprised of individuals with a U.S. baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent, and thus does not constitute a professional association as defined in the regulations.

AAO agreed the endeavor lacks national importance. The recommendation letters addressed the petitioner's professional experience rather than the prospective impact of the endeavor. The business plan's financial and staffing projections lacked corroborating basis. The software application was not yet created. The expert opinion restated the business plan without independent support. Overall, the evidence showed only local/client-level impact, not broader field or national impact.

AAO found the O*NET data shows that facilities manager requires only vocational training or an associate's degree, not a bachelor's degree, so the petitioner does not qualify as a member of the professions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

AAO found that the revenue and job creation projections were speculative conjecture, the claimed ripple effects lacked an evidentiary basis extending beyond the Petitioner's own business and clients, and reliance on industry-wide statistics does not establish national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. The updated business plan on appeal did not remedy these deficiencies.

AAO found the Petitioner's assertions of deeply different services and critical breakthroughs unsubstantiated. Reliance on the collective impact of IT professionals as a whole does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Working for national entities does not by itself establish national importance, and the Petitioner did not show she developed new systems analyst measures or that her endeavor is federally funded.

AAO remanded without reaching the merits of any individual criterion, finding the Director's decision insufficient for review overall.

AAO noted a discrepancy between two letters — one certifying 'participation' and another certifying 'membership' — and instructed the Director to determine whether the Petitioner established qualifying membership under Article Five of the organization's statutes, rather than mere representative status under Article Ten. AAO also noted the record does not show that Category A or B membership requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.

AAO remanded for the Director to address this criterion, which had been ignored despite evidence being submitted.

AAO found that contrary to the Director's decision, the record does not include a license from the Ministry of Labor; the identity card and enrollment document show only enrollment, not a license; the diploma shows completion of coursework, not licensure; and the record book shows employment history, not a license.