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 10651–10660
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
ten years full-time experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letter does not establish full-time experience or whether coaching plus personal participation amounted to full time, and at most documents two years as of the 2019 filing date — far less than the required ten years.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letter does not establish full-time experience or whether coaching plus personal participation amounted to full time, and at most documents two years as of the 2019 filing date — far less than the required ten years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-20_01_B5203; source_row=28791 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed eligibility for the Medical Science & Technology Award is limited to individuals/companies in the city, and the record lacked evidence of national or international recognition. The certificate from the Science and Technology Commission appeared to relate to a research grant rather than an award for past achievement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed eligibility for the Medical Science & Technology Award is limited to individuals/companies in the city, and the record lacked evidence of national or international recognition. The certificate from the Science and Technology Commission appeared to relate to a research grant rather than an award for past achievement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-15_01_B2203; source_row=28781 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found publication in highly ranked journals does not itself establish major significance; aggregate citation counts reflect overall publication record rather than majorly significant research; cited articles did not single out Petitioner's work as authoritative; patents recognize originality but not necessarily major significance; and the expert letter spoke in conclusory and prospective terms without showing actual imp…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found publication in highly ranked journals does not itself establish major significance; aggregate citation counts reflect overall publication record rather than majorly significant research; cited articles did not single out Petitioner's work as authoritative; patents recognize originality but not necessarily major significance; and the expert letter spoke in conclusory and prospective terms without showing actual impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-15_01_B2203; source_row=28783 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's refusal to consider the post-filing hospital certificate but ultimately concluded that even with that document, Petitioner had not shown her role was leading or critical: the certificate was unsigned, the organizational chart placed her several tiers below the President in a sub-department, there was a discrepancy in her job title, and there was no evidence of when she assumed the role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's refusal to consider the post-filing hospital certificate but ultimately concluded that even with that document, Petitioner had not shown her role was leading or critical: the certificate was unsigned, the organizational chart placed her several tiers below the President in a sub-department, there was a discrepancy in her job title, and there was no evidence of when she assumed the role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-15_01_B2203; source_row=28785 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO did not reach the final merits determination because the initial evidentiary threshold was not met, but added an alternative aggregate-review observation that the record did not show 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 did not reach the final merits determination because the initial evidentiary threshold was not met, but added an alternative aggregate-review observation that the record did not show the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-15_01_B2203; source_row=28789 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because the Petitioner provided inconsistent information about her proposed endeavor — first an employment role, then an entrepreneurial venture — AAO could not determine whether the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
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 +
Because the Petitioner provided inconsistent information about her proposed endeavor — first an employment role, then an entrepreneurial venture — AAO could not determine whether the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-12_01_B5203; source_row=28778 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because the Petitioner provided inconsistent information about her proposed endeavor, AAO could not determine whether she is well positioned to advance it.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner provided inconsistent information about her proposed endeavor, AAO could not determine whether she is well positioned to advance it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-10-12_01_B5203; source_row=28779 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c