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 4761–4770
案件事实
审查的问题
judging the work of others
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed that documented peer review activities satisfied criterion (iv).
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 that documented peer review activities satisfied criterion (iv).
案件事实
审查的问题
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO conducted a comprehensive review and agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's record — including limited and undistinguished peer review activities, modest citation counts without comparative context, inconclusive download data, unsubstantiated claims about ADS inclusion, and reference letters that fell short of establishing top-of-field recognition — did not collectively establish sustained national or internatio…
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 conducted a comprehensive review and agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's record — including limited and undistinguished peer review activities, modest citation counts without comparative context, inconclusive download data, unsubstantiated claims about ADS inclusion, and reference letters that fell short of establishing top-of-field recognition — did not collectively establish sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability classification.
案件事实
审查的问题
authorship of scholarly articles
证据为何得到认可
AAO agreed that the Petitioner satisfied criterion (vi) through his publication 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 that the Petitioner satisfied criterion (vi) through his publication record.
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 evidence did not establish national importance because it consisted primarily of general industry articles without specifics about the Petitioner's methodologies or broader impact, the expert letter lacked specifics about how the benefit would extend beyond the Petitioner's own clients, and the business plan's economic projections were insufficiently detailed and unsupported by corroborating evidence.
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 evidence did not establish national importance because it consisted primarily of general industry articles without specifics about the Petitioner's methodologies or broader impact, the expert letter lacked specifics about how the benefit would extend beyond the Petitioner's own clients, and the business plan's economic projections were insufficiently detailed and unsupported by corroborating evidence.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found the Petitioner failed to show its potential impact beyond his own business, employees, and clients. The five-year projections of $2.1 million in revenue and 48 employees did not demonstrate a national-level economic effect, the HUBZone argument was unsupported, and the expert opinion did not show how the specific venture would affect the economy or field…
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 agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found the Petitioner failed to show its potential impact beyond his own business, employees, and clients. The five-year projections of $2.1 million in revenue and 48 employees did not demonstrate a national-level economic effect, the HUBZone argument was unsupported, and the expert opinion did not show how the specific venture would affect the economy or field on a national level.
案件事实
审查的问题
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to identify the author of the online news article as required, did not document the radio interviews sufficiently, and that major media articles about events she organized were not specifically about the Petitioner or her 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。
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to identify the author of the online news article as required, did not document the radio interviews sufficiently, and that major media articles about events she organized were not specifically about the Petitioner or her work.
案件事实
审查的问题
prizes or awards
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the employer letters do not establish the awarding organization's intent to recognize the Petitioner individually, and the record lacked objective evidence that the BAPRA awards are nationally or internationally recognized.
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 employer letters do not establish the awarding organization's intent to recognize the Petitioner individually, and the record lacked objective evidence that the BAPRA awards are nationally or internationally recognized.
案件事实
审查的问题
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the BPRA letter and bylaws do not sufficiently establish requirements for outstanding achievements or how such achievements are evaluated. The other organizations also failed to demonstrate they require outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts.
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 BPRA letter and bylaws do not sufficiently establish requirements for outstanding achievements or how such achievements are evaluated. The other organizations also failed to demonstrate they require outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to show her specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications in her field or generate substantial positive economic effects rising to national importance. While the endeavor has substantial merit, the submitted documentation — including general industry articles and support letters — does not show that her consulting company's work would impact her industry or 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 agreed that the Petitioner failed to show her specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications in her field or generate substantial positive economic effects rising to national importance. While the endeavor has substantial merit, the submitted documentation — including general industry articles and support letters — does not show that her consulting company's work would impact her industry or the U.S. economy beyond her company and its direct clientele.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO adopted the Director's analysis and further found the business plan lacked specific data to support projections on job creation and revenue, and the Petitioner did not adequately describe the scope or broader impact of his endeavor at a level commensurate with national importance.
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 adopted the Director's analysis and further found the business plan lacked specific data to support projections on job creation and revenue, and the Petitioner did not adequately describe the scope or broader impact of his endeavor at a level commensurate with national importance.