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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award
What the decision said
The petitioner initially claimed a recognition plaque from an employer for organizing a conference but did not dispute the Director's rejection of this claim on appeal, so the AAO considered it waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner initially claimed a recognition plaque from an employer for organizing a conference but did not dispute the Director's rejection of this claim on appeal, so the AAO considered it waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_02_B2203; source_row=27453 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
Original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Letters from faculty members and colleagues describe the petitioner's predictive maintenance models and conference organization, but lack first-hand corroboration from claimed implementing organizations and contain only general assertions. Citation data from Google Scholar shows none of his publications cited more than three times, and citation evidence in the record does not establish widespread adoption of his work.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Letters from faculty members and colleagues describe the petitioner's predictive maintenance models and conference organization, but lack first-hand corroboration from claimed implementing organizations and contain only general assertions. Citation data from Google Scholar shows none of his publications cited more than three times, and citation evidence in the record does not establish widespread adoption of his work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_02_B2203; source_row=27458 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination: sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim. Citation data showed minimal impact of published work, the most recent cited article dated to 2015, university positions were not the result of wider acclaim, and supportive letters from close associates lacked objective corroboration.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim. Citation data showed minimal impact of published work, the most recent cited article dated to 2015, university positions were not the result of wider acclaim, and supportive letters from close associates lacked objective corroboration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_02_B2203; source_row=27462 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner already established three criteria, AAO declined to make a separate determination on this criterion at step one and considered the evidence 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 +
Because the Petitioner already established three criteria, AAO declined to make a separate determination on this criterion at step one and considered the evidence in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_03_B2203; source_row=27466 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c