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 5681–5690
案件事实
审查的问题
academic record
证据为何得到认可
AAO concluded the academic credentials are sufficient to satisfy criterion (A).
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 concluded the academic credentials are sufficient to satisfy criterion (A).
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 explicitly reserved the third prong as unnecessary to the outcome, given the dispositive denial on the second prong.
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 explicitly reserved the third prong as unnecessary to the outcome, given the dispositive denial on the second prong.
案件事实
审查的问题
substantial merit and national importance
证据为何得到认可
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the petitioner's documentation showing broader implications for public health and the engineering field, with results to be widely disseminated, established 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 disagreed with the Director, finding that the petitioner's documentation showing broader implications for public health and the engineering field, with results to be widely disseminated, established national importance.
案件事实
审查的问题
comparable evidence
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner failed to identify which specific criteria do not apply to her occupation or explain why. It was also noted that the Petitioner incorrectly cited comparable evidence criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability rather than the EB-2 exceptional ability classification she was actually seeking.
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 Petitioner failed to identify which specific criteria do not apply to her occupation or explain why. It was also noted that the Petitioner incorrectly cited comparable evidence criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability rather than the EB-2 exceptional ability classification she was actually seeking.
案件事实
审查的问题
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner's own business was small (sole employee) and operated only about nine years without documented media coverage or awards, so it lacked a distinguished reputation. While AAO agreed the major social media company had a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner was not employed by it and the letters from the company did not explain how his contributions mattered to its results or activities.
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 Petitioner's own business was small (sole employee) and operated only about nine years without documented media coverage or awards, so it lacked a distinguished reputation. While AAO agreed the major social media company had a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner was not employed by it and the letters from the company did not explain how his contributions mattered to its results or activities.
案件事实
审查的问题
participation as a judge of others' work
AAO 为什么未被说服
The 2012-2013 commission work involved evaluating business- and tax-related projects, not work in AI, app development, or an allied field. The software product evaluations did not demonstrate judging the work of other software developers; rather, the Petitioner appeared to be selecting which application best suited an organization.
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。
The 2012-2013 commission work involved evaluating business- and tax-related projects, not work in AI, app development, or an allied field. The software product evaluations did not demonstrate judging the work of other software developers; rather, the Petitioner appeared to be selecting which application best suited an organization.
案件事实
审查的问题
published material about the petitioner
AAO 为什么未被说服
The two business technology websites ranked 130th and 172nd in online traffic among technology sites in Russia, which does not establish them as major trade publications or major media. The third website, which appeared to be a major medium, lacked documentary proof of publication. The websites also were not shown to be professional publications targeting a professional technology audience.
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 two business technology websites ranked 130th and 172nd in online traffic among technology sites in Russia, which does not establish them as major trade publications or major media. The third website, which appeared to be a major medium, lacked documentary proof of publication. The websites also were not shown to be professional publications targeting a professional technology audience.
案件事实
审查的问题
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
AAO 为什么未被说服
While the Petitioner documented membership in the engineering organization and an invitation to join the data science community, the record does not establish membership in the other two groups, and none of the four organizations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international 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。
While the Petitioner documented membership in the engineering organization and an invitation to join the data science community, the record does not establish membership in the other two groups, and none of the four organizations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
案件事实
审查的问题
high salary or remuneration
AAO 为什么未被说服
The Petitioner's comparison was limited to regional wages in an area about 250 miles from Moscow, which does not accurately reflect national averages, and the standard requires comparison to others in the field nationally.
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 Petitioner's comparison was limited to regional wages in an area about 250 miles from Moscow, which does not accurately reflect national averages, and the standard requires comparison to others in the field nationally.
案件事实
审查的问题
original contributions of major significance
AAO 为什么未被说服
The IT projects for educational institutions lacked demonstrated importance to the AI/app development field. The social media app copying claims lacked corroborating evidence. The scholarly articles lacked evidence of regular citation or explanation of their significance.…
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。
The IT projects for educational institutions lacked demonstrated importance to the AI/app development field. The social media app copying claims lacked corroborating evidence. The scholarly articles lacked evidence of regular citation or explanation of their significance. Most support letters came from clients, business associates, and a former employer rather than independent sources, and none specified the broader significance of contributions to the field.