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 12071–12080
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO does not disturb the Director's finding that this criterion was met, but criticizes how the Director treated this 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 +
AAO does not disturb the Director's finding that this criterion was met, but criticizes how the Director treated this evidence in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-05_01_B2203; source_row=26985 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted the final merits analysis and found the evidence insufficient. The Petitioner's awards were low-tier within their respective competitions, web-based media coverage could not be attributed to individual articles, reference letters came largely from personal acquaintances without evidence that her innovations influenced others, publication circulation was limited, and the bulk of evidence was confined to the two…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted the final merits analysis and found the evidence insufficient. The Petitioner's awards were low-tier within their respective competitions, web-based media coverage could not be attributed to individual articles, reference letters came largely from personal acquaintances without evidence that her innovations influenced others, publication circulation was limited, and the bulk of evidence was confined to the two years before filing, negating a finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_03_B2203; source_row=26974 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's judging involved only students, not recognized experts; his citation record was insufficient for sustained acclaim; his roles did not garner national/international attention; his conference award did not establish sustained acclaim; his society memberships were not shown to be prestigious or remarkable; and his recommendation letters only speculated about potential future impact rather than d…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's judging involved only students, not recognized experts; his citation record was insufficient for sustained acclaim; his roles did not garner national/international attention; his conference award did not establish sustained acclaim; his society memberships were not shown to be prestigious or remarkable; and his recommendation letters only speculated about potential future impact rather than demonstrating actual major significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_02_B2203; source_row=26970 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's two patents recognized originality but did not establish major significance, as the technology was still at the testing stage with only prospective future impact. Recommendation letters credited the Petitioner with work at his company but did not show how his contributions were majorly significant in the overall field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's two patents recognized originality but did not establish major significance, as the technology was still at the testing stage with only prospective future impact. Recommendation letters credited the Petitioner with work at his company but did not show how his contributions were majorly significant in the overall field. Letters were speculative about future impact and lacked specific details about actual influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_01_B2203; source_row=26963 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
None of the submitted articles constituted published material about the Petitioner. Of the articles submitted, 14 never mentioned the Petitioner, 7 briefly mentioned him as a co-founder only as background, and 2 briefly quoted him. The articles were about the Petitioner's company, not about the Petitioner himself.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
None of the submitted articles constituted published material about the Petitioner. Of the articles submitted, 14 never mentioned the Petitioner, 7 briefly mentioned him as a co-founder only as background, and 2 briefly quoted him. The articles were about the Petitioner's company, not about the Petitioner himself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_01_B2203; source_row=26962 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Bloomberg article was about an app developed by the company, not about the Petitioner. The TV interview still shots did not demonstrate published material about the Petitioner relating to his work. Most items lacked required title, date, and/or author information. The majority of items were about the company and merely mentioned or quoted the Petitioner.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Bloomberg article was about an app developed by the company, not about the Petitioner. The TV interview still shots did not demonstrate published material about the Petitioner relating to his work. Most items lacked required title, date, and/or author information. The majority of items were about the company and merely mentioned or quoted the Petitioner. Most websites were not shown to be professional or major trade publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_04_B2203; source_row=26977 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he personally received venture capital funding (it was his company that received it), did not establish that venture capital constitutes a prize or award, and did not show national or international recognition of the funding sources as prizes for excellence. The 2018 business award was for the company, not the individual.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he personally received venture capital funding (it was his company that received it), did not establish that venture capital constitutes a prize or award, and did not show national or international recognition of the funding sources as prizes for excellence. The 2018 business award was for the company, not the individual. The new award claim raised on appeal was not considered as it was not presented to the Director.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_04_B2203; source_row=26975 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The supporting letter merely repeated regulatory language without corroboration, the screenshots did not show membership requirements or selection criteria for the 'founder' level, and the record did not establish that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for membership.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The supporting letter merely repeated regulatory language without corroboration, the screenshots did not show membership requirements or selection criteria for the 'founder' level, and the record did not establish that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for membership. The mentors listed were not shown to be responsible for judging membership or to constitute recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-02-03_04_B2203; source_row=26976 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c