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.
Even assuming the overall commercial success of the referenced projects, the Petitioner played small roles and did not submit evidence associating the box office or sales results with her individual involvement. The criterion requires the Petitioner's own commercial success, not merely credited involvement in a commercially successful project. Critical acclaim is not a basis for this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Even assuming the overall commercial success of the referenced projects, the Petitioner played small roles and did not submit evidence associating the box office or sales results with her individual involvement. The criterion requires the Petitioner's own commercial success, not merely credited involvement in a commercially successful project. Critical acclaim is not a basis for this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_02_B2203; source_row=27116 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the individual productions the Petitioner appeared in do not themselves constitute organizations or establishments as required by the regulation. Letters from production company representatives were either too general or failed to establish that she held a leading or critical role for the organizations themselves rather than for individual productions.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the individual productions the Petitioner appeared in do not themselves constitute organizations or establishments as required by the regulation. Letters from production company representatives were either too general or failed to establish that she held a leading or critical role for the organizations themselves rather than for individual productions. Her charitable activities did not reflect achievements as a performing artist.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_02_B2203; source_row=27114 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO affirmed that the published material must be 'about' the individual, meaning both the Petitioner and his work must be the focus of the article. The submitted articles were about the authors' own research and cited dozens of researchers; the Petitioner's rarity argument does not exempt him from his burden.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed that the published material must be 'about' the individual, meaning both the Petitioner and his work must be the focus of the article. The submitted articles were about the authors' own research and cited dozens of researchers; the Petitioner's rarity argument does not exempt him from his burden.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_01_B2203; source_row=27105 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the record established originality and some attention in the field, citation rates alone lacked sufficient context to show major significance, the expert letters did not explain remarkable impact on the field, and no comparative data was provided to contextualize citation frequencies. One citing article even described the Petitioner's method as 'not very efficient.'
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the record established originality and some attention in the field, citation rates alone lacked sufficient context to show major significance, the expert letters did not explain remarkable impact on the field, and no comparative data was provided to contextualize citation frequencies. One citing article even described the Petitioner's method as 'not very efficient.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_01_B2203; source_row=27107 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
The AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria at step one, though AAO noted in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria at step one, though AAO noted in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_02_B2203; source_row=27117 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO disagreed with the Director's restriction of this criterion to visual artists, finding it applies to any petitioner whose work is displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner's film being screened at film festivals satisfied this criterion because film festivals may select films based on artistic merits.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the Director's restriction of this criterion to visual artists, finding it applies to any petitioner whose work is displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner's film being screened at film festivals satisfied this criterion because film festivals may select films based on artistic merits.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_02_B2203; source_row=27113 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements, though noted the aggregate record does not support 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 declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements, though noted the aggregate record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-03-02_01_B2203; source_row=27109 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c