Search a substantial collection of case-specific reasoning, then narrow it by petition, field, legal issue, or date.
This expanded collection favors source-backed access over perfect automated classification. Fields, labels, summaries, and relevance may contain errors; records marked ‘broader context’ need extra care. Review the cited source before relying on any record. These appeals and motions do not show approval odds or denial rates, and are not legal advice or a prediction.
authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO declined to address whether the articles are scholarly because the Petitioner failed to establish that the publications (Meio & Mensagem, Adnews) are 'major' as required by the regulation. The standalone publication lacked evidence of circulation and was provided in a reduced-size, largely untranslated format.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to address whether the articles are scholarly because the Petitioner failed to establish that the publications (Meio & Mensagem, Adnews) are 'major' as required by the regulation. The standalone publication lacked evidence of circulation and was provided in a reduced-size, largely untranslated format.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_03_B2203; source_row=29525 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to establish that any of the submitted publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or major media. The Ipsos Connect report itself was not submitted, and the SimilarWeb data provided raw numbers and rankings without adequate comparison to other circulation figures. Multiple articles also lacked required author credits or were about the Petitioner only incidentally.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to establish that any of the submitted publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or major media. The Ipsos Connect report itself was not submitted, and the SimilarWeb data provided raw numbers and rankings without adequate comparison to other circulation figures. Multiple articles also lacked required author credits or were about the Petitioner only incidentally.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_03_B2203; source_row=29524 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record ambiguous as to whether the Petitioner personally received the awards or whether her employer did, noting the chairman's letter indicated prizes were 'awarded to' the agencies that produced the campaigns. Because the burden is on the Petitioner, the ambiguous evidence did not meet it.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record ambiguous as to whether the Petitioner personally received the awards or whether her employer did, noting the chairman's letter indicated prizes were 'awarded to' the agencies that produced the campaigns. Because the burden is on the Petitioner, the ambiguous evidence did not meet it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_03_B2203; source_row=29523 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO (in the prior appeal decision, affirmed on this motion) withdrew the Director's national importance finding, concluding that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's teaching would impact the field broadly beyond her specific students, nor how her research is state-of-the-art or novel given that many others publish on similar topics.…
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO (in the prior appeal decision, affirmed on this motion) withdrew the Director's national importance finding, concluding that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's teaching would impact the field broadly beyond her specific students, nor how her research is state-of-the-art or novel given that many others publish on similar topics. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner only referenced her personal statement and a non-binding non-precedent decision, which were insufficient to show AAO erred.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_01_B5203; source_row=29513 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles (comparable evidence)
What the decision said
AAO declined to address this criterion at length because three criteria were already satisfied, but noted that the scholarly articles criterion readily applies to the petitioner's engineering occupation and comparable evidence was therefore not appropriate.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to address this criterion at length because three criteria were already satisfied, but noted that the scholarly articles criterion readily applies to the petitioner's engineering occupation and comparable evidence was therefore not appropriate.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_01_B2203; source_row=29509 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Environment / Energy
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO declined to address this criterion at length because three criteria were already satisfied, but noted the evidence would be considered in the final merits determination.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to address this criterion at length because three criteria were already satisfied, but noted the evidence would be considered in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_01_B2203; source_row=29508 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Environment / Energy
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the petitioner's recognition was largely confined to his employer, that his claimed contributions lacked evidence of broader industry adoption, and that committee service was largely at his employer's direction. The petitioner therefore failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the petitioner's recognition was largely confined to his employer, that his claimed contributions lacked evidence of broader industry adoption, and that committee service was largely at his employer's direction. The petitioner therefore failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-06-13_01_B2203; source_row=29512 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c