检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO agreed the endeavor was sufficiently well-defined and that funding/client interest are more properly second-prong considerations, partially disagreeing with the Director's reasoning. However, AAO found that none of the evidence—reference letters, potential client letters, funding documents, or general articles about HR—demonstrated that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have a broad impact on the HR field or the U.S. economy rising to national importance. The analogy to Dhanasar itself (teaching that does not extend beyond students) was applied directly.

AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to show national importance. The evidence relied on generalized industry statistics and the value of immigrant entrepreneurship rather than specific impact of the Petitioner's own endeavor. Business projections lacked adequate support, expert and recommendation letters addressed the field broadly rather than the specific proposed endeavor, and no independent corroboration established that the hair care products or methodologies had national or global implications in the industry. AAO did find, however, that the endeavor has substantial merit — a finding the Director had not made.

AAO acknowledged substantial merit of the legal consulting endeavor but found the Petitioner did not establish national importance because the evidence did not show broader implications, significant U.S. employment potential, or substantial regional/national economic impact. The HUBZone-related claims were unsupported, and the expert letter lacked probative value on the specific endeavor's prospective impact.

AAO clarified that while national importance does not require immediate or quantifiable economic impact, it does require showing potential prospective impact at a national level. The Petitioner did not establish that AAO's prior application of this standard was erroneous.

The Petitioner's own financials show negative net income and negative net current assets. The parent company's financials cannot be attributed to the Petitioner as a separate legal entity. The draft tax return is not filed primary evidence. No Sonegawa factors were established to overcome the financial shortfall.

AAO held that the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor as a healthcare entrepreneur and consultant did not demonstrate national importance, as it would not extend beyond his own businesses and employers' clientele to impact the healthcare field or U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance. General assertions, industry reports about the healthcare field, and an expert opinion not focused on the specific proposed endeavor were insufficient. AAO also rejected the revised endeavor as an impermissible material change introduced after filing.

AAO found that the Petitioner's reliance on personal credentials for the national importance argument was misplaced (that goes to prong two). The business plan lacked corroborating evidence for economic projections, the expert letter focused on need for physical therapists generally rather than the specific endeavor's prospective impact, and the industry reports did not attribute specific national economic or field-wide impact to the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor.

AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence—consisting of a business plan, personal statements, industry reports, and an expert opinion—failed to demonstrate that his proposed software development, video game design, and IT consulting business would have broader implications for the field or the U.S. economy beyond serving his own clients. The projected 21 jobs and $7.59 million in revenue over five years, unsupported by corroborating evidence, did not rise to the level of national importance. Reliance on the importance of the industry rather than the specific proposed endeavor was insufficient under Dhanasar.

AAO withdrew the Director's adverse finding on substantial merit, concluding the Petitioner's work as a financial adviser to SMEs does have substantial merit. However, AAO affirmed that the national importance element was not met, finding the Petitioner's services would be tailored to a limited sector of SME clients in the Texas oil and gas industry and would not broadly impact SMEs industry-wide or nationally.

AAO agreed the petitioner showed substantial merit but not national importance. The petitioner's claims were generalized, without specific details of his proposed endeavor's broader national impact. The expert opinion letter restated generalized claims rather than addressing the particulars of the endeavor. The business plan lacked corroborating evidence of projected staffing, hiring plans, or economic impact sufficient to show national importance.