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.
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach whether criterion (ii) was satisfied because three other criteria were already established, making a decision on this criterion unnecessary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach whether criterion (ii) was satisfied because three other criteria were already established, making a decision on this criterion unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-04_01_B2203; source_row=26121 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that citation rates relative to other researchers did not establish widespread field impact, that publication in high-impact journals does not demonstrate that the field considers the work majorly significant, that being cited alongside other researchers without distinction does not show major significance, that advisory letters confirmed originality but not widespread impact, and that while two letters showed…
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 citation rates relative to other researchers did not establish widespread field impact, that publication in high-impact journals does not demonstrate that the field considers the work majorly significant, that being cited alongside other researchers without distinction does not show major significance, that advisory letters confirmed originality but not widespread impact, and that while two letters showed specific reliance by other researchers, they did not demonstrate widespread impact on the overall field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-03_02_B2203; source_row=26118 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to reach a final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet at least three evidentiary criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish 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 reach a final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet at least three evidentiary criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-03_02_B2203; source_row=26119 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner satisfies the judging criterion based on her peer review and conference/fellowship evaluation activities.
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 Director that the Petitioner satisfies the judging criterion based on her peer review and conference/fellowship evaluation activities.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=26108 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the Petitioner's employment agreement and CEO letter established her leading role, and that the company's selection as a 2017 award recipient and acceptance as a company-in-residence at a top-tier device incubator established its distinguished reputation.
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 employment agreement and CEO letter established her leading role, and that the company's selection as a 2017 award recipient and acceptance as a company-in-residence at a top-tier device incubator established its distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=26110 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO determined the Petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. Her judging roles lacked evidence of wide recognition; her citations declined sharply after 2013 relative to top scientists; her leading role correspondence focused on future potential; her awards lacked evidence of wide field recognition; her original contributions had not yet been widely implemented; and grants, fellowships, and memb…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO determined the Petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. Her judging roles lacked evidence of wide recognition; her citations declined sharply after 2013 relative to top scientists; her leading role correspondence focused on future potential; her awards lacked evidence of wide field recognition; her original contributions had not yet been widely implemented; and grants, fellowships, and memberships lacked evidence of field-wide recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=26115 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c