可追溯来源的裁决研究

检索 AAO 如何审视申请证据。

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。

清除筛选

10,847 份裁决 / 36,849 项裁决认定

当前显示 21541–21550

NIWNIW · 有能力推进事业未满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

数学 / 统计硕士

审查的问题

NIW · 有能力推进事业

national in scope

AAO 为什么未被说服

The AAO rejected the argument that enactment of the NCLBA made math teaching inherently national in scope, noting that all employment-based classifications are based on Acts of Congress and Congress has not exempted math teachers from the job offer requirement. The petitioner's witness letters showed impact only in local classrooms and school systems.

为什么值得参考

识别 AAO 期待看到的已有进展、资源、外部兴趣,以及过去经历与未来计划之间的连接。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The AAO rejected the argument that enactment of the NCLBA made math teaching inherently national in scope, noting that all employment-based classifications are based on Acts of Congress and Congress has not exempted math teachers from the job offer requirement. The petitioner's witness letters showed impact only in local classrooms and school systems.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-15_01_B5203; source_row=16393
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · 高薪酬未满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他经理博士

审查的问题

EB-1A · 高薪酬

high salary or remuneration

AAO 为什么未被说服

The petitioner submitted salary comparisons limited to peers at the two universities where she worked, which is not an appropriate basis for comparison. The petitioner must show a high salary relative to others in the field nationally, not just compared to local peers at her employing institutions.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner submitted salary comparisons limited to peers at the two universities where she worked, which is not an appropriate basis for comparison. The petitioner must show a high salary relative to others in the field nationally, not just compared to local peers at her employing institutions.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B2203; source_row=16377
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
NIWNIW · EB-2 基础资格未满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他

审查的问题

NIW · EB-2 基础资格

advanced degree or foreign equivalent qualification

AAO 为什么未被说服

A three-year or vocational credential cannot constitute a 'foreign equivalent degree' to a U.S. baccalaureate. The beneficiary's credentials were issued by vocational/technical schools, not colleges or universities, and the credential evaluator's opinion has little probative value. A combination of lesser credentials cannot substitute for a single foreign equivalent of a four-year bachelor's degree.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
A three-year or vocational credential cannot constitute a 'foreign equivalent degree' to a U.S. baccalaureate. The beneficiary's credentials were issued by vocational/technical schools, not colleges or universities, and the credential evaluator's opinion has little probative value. A combination of lesser credentials cannot substitute for a single foreign equivalent of a four-year bachelor's degree.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_02_B5203; source_row=16382
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · 学术论文作者已满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他经理博士

审查的问题

EB-1A · 学术论文作者

authorship of scholarly articles

证据为何得到认可

The petitioner documented her authorship of scholarly articles and the AAO affirmed the director's finding that this criterion was met.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner documented her authorship of scholarly articles and the AAO affirmed the director's finding that this criterion was met.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B2203; source_row=16375
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · 评审已满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他经理博士

审查的问题

EB-1A · 评审

judging the work of others

证据为何得到认可

The petitioner submitted evidence showing she served as a peer reviewer, and the AAO affirmed the director's finding that this criterion was met.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner submitted evidence showing she served as a peer reviewer, and the AAO affirmed the director's finding that this criterion was met.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B2203; source_row=16373
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · 原创贡献未满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他经理博士

审查的问题

EB-1A · 原创贡献

original contributions of major significance

AAO 为什么未被说服

The petitioner submitted numerous expert letters and citation evidence, but the letters were largely conclusory and lacked specific examples of major impact. The citation record showed minimal to moderate independent citations (no article cited more than nine times independently), and there was no documentary evidence that the petitioner's models or findings were widely implemented throughout the field.…

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner submitted numerous expert letters and citation evidence, but the letters were largely conclusory and lacked specific examples of major impact. The citation record showed minimal to moderate independent citations (no article cited more than nine times independently), and there was no documentary evidence that the petitioner's models or findings were widely implemented throughout the field. Future potential impact could not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B2203; source_row=16374
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
NIWother未满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他

审查的问题

other

required experience and specific skills as of priority date

AAO 为什么未被说服

Required experience under the labor certification was supported only by a coworker affidavit for the 1999–2005 period, which does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1)'s requirement of an employer letter.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
Required experience under the labor certification was supported only by a coworker affidavit for the 1999–2005 period, which does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1)'s requirement of an employer letter.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B5203; source_row=16380
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
NIWNIW · EB-2 基础资格已满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他

审查的问题

NIW · EB-2 基础资格

foreign equivalent bachelor's degree

证据为何得到认可

AAO found that, because the three-year B.Tech. was sequential to and built upon the beneficiary's prior three-year Diploma in Engineering (with shared coursework per the registrar letter), the B.Tech. qualifies as the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that, because the three-year B.Tech. was sequential to and built upon the beneficiary's prior three-year Diploma in Engineering (with shared coursework per the registrar letter), the B.Tech. qualifies as the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B5203; source_row=16379
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
NIWother未满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

其他

审查的问题

other

continuing ability to pay the proffered wage

AAO 为什么未被说服

The 2009 annual report submitted was for a separate corporate entity and predated the priority date; petitioner provided no qualifying tax returns, audited financial statements, or financial officer letter for itself.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The 2009 annual report submitted was for a separate corporate entity and predated the priority date; petitioner provided no qualifying tax returns, audited financial statements, or financial officer letter for itself.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_01_B5203; source_row=16381
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
NIWother已满足自动提取 · 分类可能不完整

案件事实

数学 / 统计

审查的问题

other

Successor petitioner's ability to pay from acquisition date forward

证据为何得到认可

The petitioner's net income was $17,410,000 in 2010 and $9,969,000 in 2011, both exceeding the proffered wage of $61,000 per year. The director's contrary conclusion was therefore withdrawn.

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。

查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner's net income was $17,410,000 in 2010 and $9,969,000 in 2011, both exceeding the proffered wage of $61,000 per year. The director's contrary conclusion was therefore withdrawn.
精确记录定位: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-05-14_03_B5203; source_row=16384
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
打开来源数据集 ↗
← 返回测评