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.
10,847 decisions /36,849 findings
Showing 10521–10530
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
EconomicsFaculty
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated original contributions but failed to show they were of major significance to the broader field. Implementation of some proposals at local/regional governmental levels, thesis reviews as part of a degree-awarding process, and limited citations did not rise to the level of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated original contributions but failed to show they were of major significance to the broader field. Implementation of some proposals at local/regional governmental levels, thesis reviews as part of a degree-awarding process, and limited citations did not rise to the level of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-01-05_01_B2203; source_row=28964 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
EconomicsFaculty
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because step one was not satisfied, while noting in advisory dicta that the record would not support a finding of the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because step one was not satisfied, while noting in advisory dicta that the record would not support a finding of the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-01-05_01_B2203; source_row=28966 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that the Petitioner's citation record was relevant to prong two (whether he is well-positioned), not prong one (national importance of the endeavor itself). The support letters focused on past research rather than the national importance of the three proposed projects. The record lacked evidence of broader implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects.
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 +
The AAO found that the Petitioner's citation record was relevant to prong two (whether he is well-positioned), not prong one (national importance of the endeavor itself). The support letters focused on past research rather than the national importance of the three proposed projects. The record lacked evidence of broader implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-01-03_01_B5203; source_row=28959 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that neither the reference letters nor the program webpage mentioned evaluation panels, and that the mentoring activity — a quarter-long reading project with weekly meetings — did not constitute judging the work of others in the field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that neither the reference letters nor the program webpage mentioned evaluation panels, and that the mentoring activity — a quarter-long reading project with weekly meetings — did not constitute judging the work of others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-29_01_B2203; source_row=28952 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the petitioner authored an article published in Inverse Problems in 2015, and that abstracts of papers presented at conferences were published in conference proceedings, establishing he met this criterion.
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 +
The AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that the petitioner authored an article published in Inverse Problems in 2015, and that abstracts of papers presented at conferences were published in conference proceedings, establishing he met this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-29_01_B2203; source_row=28953 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination because the initial evidentiary threshold was not met, though noted the aggregate record does not support extraordinary ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination because the initial evidentiary threshold was not met, though noted the aggregate record does not support extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-29_01_B2203; source_row=28955 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c