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.
AAO deferred contested criteria to the final merits but noted the Sobaka magazine nomination was regional in nature and did not demonstrate a nationally recognized award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO deferred contested criteria to the final merits but noted the Sobaka magazine nomination was regional in nature and did not demonstrate a nationally recognized award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_12_B2203; source_row=26921 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social SciencesManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO deferred contested criteria to the final merits and found in the final merits that the record did not demonstrate the petitioner's contributions had significantly impacted the overall field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO deferred contested criteria to the final merits and found in the final merits that the record did not demonstrate the petitioner's contributions had significantly impacted the overall field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_12_B2203; source_row=26925 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical65 papers385 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the expert letters lacked specific information about actual field impact and relied heavily on speculation about future potential; the citation evidence (average of ~6 citations per article) did not establish major significance; and the conference presentations were not shown to be of major significance. Original contributions were documented but their major significance was not established.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the expert letters lacked specific information about actual field impact and relied heavily on speculation about future potential; the citation evidence (average of ~6 citations per article) did not establish major significance; and the conference presentations were not shown to be of major significance. Original contributions were documented but their major significance was not established.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_10_B2203; source_row=26912 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the Ministry of Education award was not shown to be a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence; the certificate appeared to be proof of project completion rather than an award; and the research grants went to the institution rather than the Petitioner personally and were not recognition of excellence.
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 Ministry of Education award was not shown to be a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence; the certificate appeared to be proof of project completion rather than an award; and the research grants went to the institution rather than the Petitioner personally and were not recognition of excellence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_10_B2203; source_row=26910 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical65 papers385 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the Petitioner failed to establish the hospitals had distinguished reputations, as self-generated materials (hospital's own letter and website) cannot establish outside perception, and the letters from professors did not provide an objective basis for comparison. The non-hospital role claims were waived on appeal.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the Petitioner failed to establish the hospitals had distinguished reputations, as self-generated materials (hospital's own letter and website) cannot establish outside perception, and the letters from professors did not provide an objective basis for comparison. The non-hospital role claims were waived on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_10_B2203; source_row=26914 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
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
AAO found that the Petitioner's committee positions were local and ad hoc with no demonstrated acclaim-based selection process, her editorial board memberships were on large boards with unclear selection criteria, her citation record lacked evidence of continued impact after 2009, her early classification contributions were not shown to have produced sustained acclaim, and her reference letters were largely vague, templated…
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 committee positions were local and ad hoc with no demonstrated acclaim-based selection process, her editorial board memberships were on large boards with unclear selection criteria, her citation record lacked evidence of continued impact after 2009, her early classification contributions were not shown to have produced sustained acclaim, and her reference letters were largely vague, templated, or from unqualified sources.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_01_B2203; source_row=26873 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the evidence showed the Petitioner made original and innovative engineering contributions that benefited his employers, none of the letters, press releases, or expert opinions established that those contributions remarkably impacted or influenced the broader field beyond the companies and their clients. The expert letters were general and conclusory rather than specific about field-wide impact.
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 evidence showed the Petitioner made original and innovative engineering contributions that benefited his employers, none of the letters, press releases, or expert opinions established that those contributions remarkably impacted or influenced the broader field beyond the companies and their clients. The expert letters were general and conclusory rather than specific about field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_07_B2203; source_row=26895 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the expert letters were of questionable provenance due to near-identical language suggesting common authorship, that the letters described findings in technical detail without explaining major significance, and that the Petitioner's role in highly-cited multi-author papers was not established as being of major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the expert letters were of questionable provenance due to near-identical language suggesting common authorship, that the letters described findings in technical detail without explaining major significance, and that the Petitioner's role in highly-cited multi-author papers was not established as being of major significance. Citation rates in the top 1% were noted but insufficient given the Petitioner's unspecified role among many co-authors.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_05_B2203; source_row=26885 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the Beneficiary was a valued team member on significant high-profile P3 projects, the letters submitted did not contain specific, detailed information identifying his original contributions or explaining their unusual influence on the specialized field.…
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 Beneficiary was a valued team member on significant high-profile P3 projects, the letters submitted did not contain specific, detailed information identifying his original contributions or explaining their unusual influence on the specialized field. The Petitioner improperly requested AAO to make assumptions based on the importance of overall projects rather than the Beneficiary's individual contribution.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_14_B2203; source_row=26939 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director misapplied the law by imposing a recognition-of-achievements requirement not contained in the plain language of the regulation, and also disagreed that occupation-inherent judging is automatically disqualifying.…
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director misapplied the law by imposing a recognition-of-achievements requirement not contained in the plain language of the regulation, and also disagreed that occupation-inherent judging is automatically disqualifying. However, AAO independently found insufficient specificity and corroborating evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's activities constituted judging the work of others as contemplated by the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_14_B2203; source_row=26938 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c