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 24511–24520
案件事实
审查的问题
national in scope
证据为何得到认可
AAO accepted the national scope of the research without dispute.
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 accepted the national scope of the research without dispute.
案件事实
审查的问题
final merits determination
AAO 为什么未被说服
Citations were moderate, peer review was limited to four manuscripts, presentations at scientific meetings are routine, salary barely exceeded NIH minimum, and references' credentials far exceeded petitioner's. Evidence does not show top-of-field 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。
Citations were moderate, peer review was limited to four manuscripts, presentations at scientific meetings are routine, salary barely exceeded NIH minimum, and references' credentials far exceeded petitioner's. Evidence does not show top-of-field acclaim.
案件事实
审查的问题
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
AAO 为什么未被说服
Scientific presentations at conferences do not qualify under this criterion, which by its plain language applies to artists.
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。
Scientific presentations at conferences do not qualify under this criterion, which by its plain language applies to artists.
案件事实
审查的问题
authorship of scholarly articles
证据为何得到认可
Petitioner documented authorship of seven scholarly articles published prior to filing date.
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。
Petitioner documented authorship of seven scholarly articles published prior to filing date.
案件事实
审查的问题
judging the work of others
AAO 为什么未被说服
Petitioner did not contest the director's adverse finding; AAO deemed the issue abandoned. Record lacked evidence from publications' editorial staff.
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。
Petitioner did not contest the director's adverse finding; AAO deemed the issue abandoned. Record lacked evidence from publications' editorial staff.
案件事实
审查的问题
national in scope
裁决如何说明
The AAO did not separately address the second prong, proceeding to the dispositive third 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。
The AAO did not separately address the second prong, proceeding to the dispositive third prong.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial intrinsic merit
裁决如何说明
The AAO did not separately analyze the first prong; the director did not dispute it, and the AAO proceeded directly to the dispositive third prong.
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”。
The AAO did not separately analyze the first prong; the director did not dispute it, and the AAO proceeded directly to the dispositive third prong.
案件事实
审查的问题
Timely filing of motion to reopen/reconsider
AAO 为什么未被说服
The AAO found the motion untimely because the Nebraska Service Center received it on June 9, 2009, one day after the June 8 deadline. The petitioner's claim that the delay was beyond his control was unsupported: no documentation from FedEx was submitted, and the original FedEx receipt showed a different handwritten date ('06/05/09') than the carbonless copy ('6/7/09'), suggesting the date on the original was added after the…
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 AAO found the motion untimely because the Nebraska Service Center received it on June 9, 2009, one day after the June 8 deadline. The petitioner's claim that the delay was beyond his control was unsupported: no documentation from FedEx was submitted, and the original FedEx receipt showed a different handwritten date ('06/05/09') than the carbonless copy ('6/7/09'), suggesting the date on the original was added after the copies were separated.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial intrinsic merit
证据为何得到认可
AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner's work in astronautical and space systems engineering is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.
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 concurred with the director that the petitioner's work in astronautical and space systems engineering is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.
案件事实
审查的问题
national in scope
证据为何得到认可
AAO concurred with the director that the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work — advancing the understanding and utilization of space systems — would be national in scope.
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 concurred with the director that the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work — advancing the understanding and utilization of space systems — would be national in scope.