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 4591–4600
案件事实
审查的问题
on balance, beneficial to the United States
裁决如何说明
AAO does not reach prong 3 in light of the remand.
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 does not reach prong 3 in light of the remand.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
裁决如何说明
The director found substantial merit but concluded the endeavor lacked national importance based on the wrong (withdrawn-petition) endeavor. AAO does not reach prong 1 substantively and remands for the director to reconsider on the correct record.
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The director found substantial merit but concluded the endeavor lacked national importance based on the wrong (withdrawn-petition) endeavor. AAO does not reach prong 1 substantively and remands for the director to reconsider on the correct record.
案件事实
审查的问题
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
裁决如何说明
AAO does not reach prong 2 because the underlying material-change determination was erroneous; the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication.
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 does not reach prong 2 because the underlying material-change determination was erroneous; the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication.
案件事实
审查的问题
meet at least three of six evidentiary criteria for exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the Petitioner's appeal letters failed to tie any submitted evidence to any specific criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), and the Petitioner also failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director's decision. No criterion was demonstrated met.
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 the Petitioner's appeal letters failed to tie any submitted evidence to any specific criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), and the Petitioner also failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director's decision. No criterion was demonstrated met.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
裁决如何说明
AAO reserved this prong because the Petitioner did not establish the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification.
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 reserved this prong because the Petitioner did not establish the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification.
案件事实
审查的问题
exceptional ability qualification
裁决如何说明
AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary to the disposition because the NIW prong-1 failure was dispositive.
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 reserved this issue as unnecessary to the disposition because the NIW prong-1 failure was dispositive.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found substantial merit established (potential for job creation and economic benefits to rural areas) but agreed with the Director that national importance was not demonstrated. The projected $254.7 million annual economic impact is a tiny fraction of the $640 million per day generated by foreign tourism to the U.S.…
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 found substantial merit established (potential for job creation and economic benefits to rural areas) but agreed with the Director that national importance was not demonstrated. The projected $254.7 million annual economic impact is a tiny fraction of the $640 million per day generated by foreign tourism to the U.S. in 2019, and the Petitioner failed to show the projects would help economically depressed areas or that his consulting services would deserve credit for all projected economic benefits.
案件事实
审查的问题
five years progressive post-baccalaureate specialty experience as master's degree equivalent
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found the record did not support the Director's conclusion. The non-profit job verification letter listed ten responsibilities with no mention of accounting, and the Petitioner's clearly accounting-related experience totaled less than four years — insufficient to meet the five-year threshold for a master's degree equivalent.
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 the record did not support the Director's conclusion. The non-profit job verification letter listed ten responsibilities with no mention of accounting, and the Petitioner's clearly accounting-related experience totaled less than four years — insufficient to meet the five-year threshold for a master's degree equivalent.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the submitted evidence was general background on SMEs and did not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Benefit to individual clients supports substantial merit (already conceded) but does not establish national importance. The Petitioner's speculation based on general background information did not meet the burden of showing broader implications and substantial positive economic effects.
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 found that the submitted evidence was general background on SMEs and did not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Benefit to individual clients supports substantial merit (already conceded) but does not establish national importance. The Petitioner's speculation based on general background information did not meet the burden of showing broader implications and substantial positive economic effects.
案件事实
审查的问题
commanded a salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
No evidence was submitted by the Petitioner to establish that they commanded a salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability.
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。
No evidence was submitted by the Petitioner to establish that they commanded a salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability.