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 11481–11490
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion based on an interview in The Beijing News with documentation establishing it as major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion based on an interview in The Beijing News with documentation establishing it as major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-06-04_01_B2203; source_row=27718 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion through articles published in China Television and Contemporary TV with documentation that they are professional publications.
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 agreed the Petitioner met this criterion through articles published in China Television and Contemporary TV with documentation that they are professional publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-06-04_01_B2203; source_row=27720 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because three criteria were already satisfied, AAO declined to reach this criterion at step 1 and instead addressed the evidence in the final merits determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because three criteria were already satisfied, AAO declined to reach this criterion at step 1 and instead addressed the evidence in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-06-04_01_B2203; source_row=27717 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to specifically identify her proposed endeavor, instead broadly claiming to continue research in unidentified methods for unspecified products. Her evidence—a website screenshot about mechanical engineering broadly and advisory letters about past work—did not establish the merit or national importance of a specific future endeavor.…
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 Petitioner failed to specifically identify her proposed endeavor, instead broadly claiming to continue research in unidentified methods for unspecified products. Her evidence—a website screenshot about mechanical engineering broadly and advisory letters about past work—did not establish the merit or national importance of a specific future endeavor. Her past research and its impacts relate to the second prong, not the first, and she did not demonstrate the nexus between her prospective work and the claimed impacts on aviation or underwater drones.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-06-02_01_B5203; source_row=27713 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Materials Science45 papers13 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded that publication in highly ranked journals does not by itself establish major significance, that comparative citation rankings do not automatically demonstrate majorly significant contributions, that aggregate citation figures reflect publication record rather than significance, that the cited articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work as authoritative, that documentation of his co-founded…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO concluded that publication in highly ranked journals does not by itself establish major significance, that comparative citation rankings do not automatically demonstrate majorly significant contributions, that aggregate citation figures reflect publication record rather than significance, that the cited articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work as authoritative, that documentation of his co-founded company did not show original contributions of major significance, and that the testimonial letters were conclusory and speculative about future impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-06-01_01_B2203; source_row=27712 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c