可追溯来源的裁决研究
从大量个案裁决理由中检索，再按申请类别、领域、法律问题或日期缩小范围。
本扩展案例库优先提供有来源依据的记录，而不以自动分类是否完美作为展示门槛。字段、标签、摘要和相关性可能有误；标为“分类可能不完整”的记录需格外谨慎。依赖任何记录前请核对所列来源。这些上诉与动议不代表获批概率或拒绝率，也不构成法律意见或个案预测。来源原文保留英文。
10,847 份裁决 / 36,849 项裁决认定
当前显示 13171–13180
案件事实
审查的问题
judging
证据为何得到认可
Both the Director and the AAO agreed that the Beneficiary satisfied the judging criterion.
为什么值得参考
了解评审邀请、已完成任务及评审性质如何被记录和衡量。
Both the Director and the AAO agreed that the Beneficiary satisfied the judging criterion.
案件事实
审查的问题
scholarly articles
证据为何得到认可
Both the Director and the AAO agreed that the Beneficiary satisfied the scholarly articles criterion.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
Both the Director and the AAO agreed that the Beneficiary satisfied the scholarly articles criterion.
案件事实
审查的问题
final merits determination
裁决如何说明
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in advisory dicta that the record would not support sustained acclaim.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in advisory dicta that the record would not support sustained acclaim.
案件事实
审查的问题
original contributions of major significance
裁决如何说明
AAO reserved the criterion (v) finding because even if met, the Petitioner could only satisfy two of the three required criteria and the appeal outcome would not change.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
AAO reserved the criterion (v) finding because even if met, the Petitioner could only satisfy two of the three required criteria and the appeal outcome would not change.
案件事实
审查的问题
authorship of scholarly articles
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the submitted articles are scholarly in nature and appeared in professional publications, finding the Director's characterization unsupported by the record.
为什么值得参考
了解 AAO 如何判断作品是否属于学术论文，以及它在整体记录中说明什么。
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the submitted articles are scholarly in nature and appeared in professional publications, finding the Director's characterization unsupported by the record.
案件事实
审查的问题
original contributions of major significance
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner's letters described original work in drug discovery but referred only in general terms to future promise and potential. Closely-held trade secrets not yet in clinical trials cannot demonstrate major significance. Citation counts of 30 were insufficient to show the work influenced the field at the level of major significance.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
The Petitioner's letters described original work in drug discovery but referred only in general terms to future promise and potential. Closely-held trade secrets not yet in clinical trials cannot demonstrate major significance. Citation counts of 30 were insufficient to show the work influenced the field at the level of major significance.
案件事实
审查的问题
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner abandoned his claim regarding one organization on appeal. As to his employer, the company's documented track record consisted only of fundraising and closely-held trade secrets; no approved drugs, no proven effectiveness, and local media attention did not establish a distinguished reputation.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
The Petitioner abandoned his claim regarding one organization on appeal. As to his employer, the company's documented track record consisted only of fundraising and closely-held trade secrets; no approved drugs, no proven effectiveness, and local media attention did not establish a distinguished reputation.
案件事实
审查的问题
original contributions of major significance in the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
The testimonial letters praised the Beneficiary's technical skills but did not identify specific original contributions or explain how he has remarkably impacted or influenced the field. Letters lacking specifics about the impact of contributions do not establish major significance.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
The testimonial letters praised the Beneficiary's technical skills but did not identify specific original contributions or explain how he has remarkably impacted or influenced the field. Letters lacking specifics about the impact of contributions do not establish major significance.
案件事实
审查的问题
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
The company award was not received by the individual beneficiary. The two remaining awards lacked evidence of national or international significance, and the record did not establish the criteria used or number of competitors for those awards.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
The company award was not received by the individual beneficiary. The two remaining awards lacked evidence of national or international significance, and the record did not establish the criteria used or number of competitors for those awards.
案件事实
审查的问题
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The limited information about membership selection criteria did not establish that the Beneficiary, admitted at age 19 or 20, was required to demonstrate outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. No by-laws or other primary documentation were provided.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
The limited information about membership selection criteria did not establish that the Beneficiary, admitted at age 19 or 20, was required to demonstrate outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. No by-laws or other primary documentation were provided.