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 211–220
案件事实
审查的问题
judging
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the Petitioner met 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。
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the Petitioner met the judging criterion.
案件事实
审查的问题
leading or critical role
裁决如何说明
AAO declined to address this criterion because the Petitioner had already satisfied the required minimum of three criteria, making consideration of an additional criterion unnecessary.
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 address this criterion because the Petitioner had already satisfied the required minimum of three criteria, making consideration of an additional criterion unnecessary.
案件事实
审查的问题
prizes or awards
证据为何得到认可
Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion through nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in footvolley.
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。
Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion through nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in footvolley.
案件事实
审查的问题
published materials
证据为何得到认可
Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion through published materials about himself and his work.
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。
Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion through published materials about himself and his work.
案件事实
审查的问题
high salary
证据为何得到认可
Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion by showing his U.S. coaching salary exceeds the average coaching salary in his geographical area.
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。
Both SCOPS and AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion by showing his U.S. coaching salary exceeds the average coaching salary in his geographical area.
案件事实
审查的问题
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
裁决如何说明
AAO found SCOPS' third-prong analysis insufficient because it did not adequately discuss the evidence weighed in the balancing or address the Petitioner's specific claims, precluding meaningful appellate review.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
AAO found SCOPS' third-prong analysis insufficient because it did not adequately discuss the evidence weighed in the balancing or address the Petitioner's specific claims, precluding meaningful appellate review.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
裁决如何说明
AAO did not resolve the prong but instructed SCOPS on remand to discuss the evidence and determine whether the record establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor, noting some submissions were incomplete.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
AAO did not resolve the prong but instructed SCOPS on remand to discuss the evidence and determine whether the record establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor, noting some submissions were incomplete.
案件事实
审查的问题
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
裁决如何说明
AAO faulted SCOPS for failing to sufficiently describe the evidence reviewed or meaningfully explain its shortcomings, particularly the support letters, and remanded without resolving the prong.
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。
AAO faulted SCOPS for failing to sufficiently describe the evidence reviewed or meaningfully explain its shortcomings, particularly the support letters, and remanded without resolving the prong.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agrees substantial merit is shown but finds the evidence demonstrates only impact to the Petitioner's clients, not broader implications for the metal fabrication industry. Importance of the field is not equivalent to importance of the specific endeavor, and the economic/job-creation claims are conclusory and unsupported.
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
AAO agrees substantial merit is shown but finds the evidence demonstrates only impact to the Petitioner's clients, not broader implications for the metal fabrication industry. Importance of the field is not equivalent to importance of the specific endeavor, and the economic/job-creation claims are conclusory and unsupported.
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
AAO found that the awards went to the Petitioner's employer, not to the Petitioner personally. The October 2024 policy guidance requires that the person be a named recipient of the award, not merely an employee of the winning entity. Colleague letters were unpersuasive because the colleagues were not privy to the awarding entities' decision-making.
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 found that the awards went to the Petitioner's employer, not to the Petitioner personally. The October 2024 policy guidance requires that the person be a named recipient of the award, not merely an employee of the winning entity. Colleague letters were unpersuasive because the colleagues were not privy to the awarding entities' decision-making.