检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

AAO found that the university admissions role was not in the Petitioner's specialty, that simultaneous employment letters did not establish full-time status, that some experience predated her baccalaureate, that her graduate certificate was not an advanced degree, and that enrollment in a master's program could not establish eligibility at time of filing.

AAO agreed with the Director that the submitted articles and reports addressed renewable energy generally, not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, and that the business plan lacked information about business activities, employment of U.S. workers, or other evidence of national importance. AAO also found that the Petitioner's appeal arguments did not overcome these deficiencies.

AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's analysis, finding the Petitioner's appeal repeated the same arguments from his RFE response without new evidence. The recommendation letters focused on the Petitioner's work ethic and past experiences rather than national importance. Industry-wide reports were relevant to substantial merit, not national importance of the specific proposed endeavor.

The AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to show national importance. Although helping U.S. businesses enter new markets and supporting the sustainability mobility sector are meritorious, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his specific endeavor would have national implications. Projected revenues and employment levels were not shown to be nationally significant, and the claimed indirect-job creation conflicted with expert evidence submitted by the Petitioner himself.

AAO found that while the Petitioner participated in research projects and co-authored articles, the record did not demonstrate the significance of her role, the impact of her research on the field, evidence of citations by independent researchers, or a record of success showing she is well-positioned. The expert opinion was given little weight because it did not sufficiently detail the basis for its conclusions.

AAO found that the Petitioner provided multiple inconsistent descriptions of her proposed endeavor (working as a dentist, as a dental practice CEO, and as a consultant to U.S. entities/clinics), and despite an RFE, failed to clarify. Even construing the endeavor as operating a dental practice, the Petitioner did not show that its prospective impact rises to national importance — the practice would not broadly impact the dental field, she did not demonstrate substantial economic effects, and her growth projections lacked objective support.

AAO agreed the Petitioner failed prong 2, finding he did not corroborate claimed Colombian business ownership and that Australian tax documents and US entry contradicted his claims. Expert opinions relying on uncorroborated assertions were given less weight, and post-filing client relationships could not establish eligibility.

AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but disagreed on national importance, finding the evidence did not show broader impact beyond his business and clients. Expert opinions and industry reports failed to tie the specific endeavor to national-level prospective impact.

AAO agreed the endeavor lacks national importance, finding the Petitioner's focus on his importance to his employer and its clients misplaced under Dhanasar, and noting his zero-sum supply-chain framing undermined claims of substantial positive economic effects. AAO expressly reserved the substantial merit aspect of prong one, which the Director also had not addressed.

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's evidence addressed the importance of the HR consulting industry and his personal achievements rather than the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The business plan projections of 30 jobs and tax revenue were insufficient to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at the national level, and the expert letter similarly focused on industry importance rather than the specific endeavor's national implications.