检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

Most internet items lacked required dates or authors, did not concern the Petitioner, or merely listed her as a competitor. The two items that were about the Petitioner failed to demonstrate their outlets were professional or major trade publications or major media. The two interviews lacked required title, date, and author information, and no evidence established the YouTube or podcast channels qualified as major media. The Petitioner's argument that bodybuilding audiences make publications 'professional' was rejected because bodybuilding does not fall within the regulatory definition of 'profession.'

The letters describing the Petitioner's promotional efforts lacked specific, detailed information about how her contributions produced successful outcomes for the company, such as before-and-after sales figures. The expert opinion letter merely repeated the company letter's claims without adding new information. Additionally, the Petitioner offered no evidence that the company itself has a distinguished reputation, only an unsupported assertion.

AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not clearly defined—her employment duties were primarily those of a director of student life rather than a researcher—and she failed to show how her work would extend beyond her immediate employer and students to have national importance. Evidence of past citation and organization membership was insufficient without corroboration of broader dissemination and impact.

AAO found that the Petitioner described the industry in general terms rather than identifying a specific prospective endeavor with national importance. Letters of recommendation either predated the petition or addressed prior work without articulating a future endeavor. The BBC article post-dated the petition filing and thus reflected new facts that cannot establish eligibility; moreover, it still did not identify what specific endeavor the Petitioner proposed. Education and professional experience are relevant to the second prong, not the first.

AAO finds the credential evaluation cited the French and Brazilian degrees collectively as a U.S. baccalaureate equivalent, so post-baccalaureate experience could not have begun until November 2016. The Petitioner's documented post-baccalaureate experience falls short of five years and relies on uncorroborated employment claims.

AAO noted the Petitioner has not indicated or established a major, internationally recognized award and proceeded under the alternate criteria.

AAO did not reach this prong because remand on the threshold EB-2 qualification and derogatory information issues rendered the Dhanasar analysis unnecessary.

AAO declined to reach the second prong because the failure to satisfy the first prong was dispositive.

AAO found the proposed endeavor insufficiently defined—it was unclear whether the Petitioner intended to work as a pilot, flight instructor, or both, and in what sequence or proportion. Even taking the endeavor at its broadest, the Petitioner failed to explain how one pilot's work would address a national shortage or generate substantial national economic impact, and the recommendation letters addressed only past experience rather than the future endeavor.

Because three criteria were already satisfied, AAO declined to evaluate the remaining claimed criteria.