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 13211–13220
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI20 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Two of three claimed contributions were based on post-filing research and could not establish eligibility as of the filing date. The third contribution, a method published in 2016, was supported by letters that lacked sufficient specificity about its actual impact on the field, and citation counts (12 for the key paper, 40 for the most cited article) were not contextualized relative to highly cited works in the field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Two of three claimed contributions were based on post-filing research and could not establish eligibility as of the filing date. The third contribution, a method published in 2016, was supported by letters that lacked sufficient specificity about its actual impact on the field, and citation counts (12 for the key paper, 40 for the most cited article) were not contextualized relative to highly cited works in the field. The evidence collectively showed the Petitioner is productive and his work is relied upon, but not that any contribution has been of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_15_B2203; source_row=25607 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Chemistry / Chemical EngineeringResearcher62 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that letters establishing a critical role on a single project do not demonstrate a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole. For his prior associate professor role, the evidence showed productivity but not how his position was leading or critical to the university's overall activities compared to other professors.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that letters establishing a critical role on a single project do not demonstrate a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole. For his prior associate professor role, the evidence showed productivity but not how his position was leading or critical to the university's overall activities compared to other professors.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_03_B2203; source_row=25544 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical EngineeringResearcher62 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original scientific contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that expert letters primarily described the novelty and potential significance of the Petitioner's work without demonstrating that contributions had already been widely implemented or remarkably impacted the field. Patent evidence showed originality but not major significance. Citation record was incomplete and citations alone were insufficient. Commercial contracts did not establish 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 expert letters primarily described the novelty and potential significance of the Petitioner's work without demonstrating that contributions had already been widely implemented or remarkably impacted the field. Patent evidence showed originality but not major significance. Citation record was incomplete and citations alone were insufficient. Commercial contracts did not establish field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_03_B2203; source_row=25542 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Chemistry / Chemical EngineeringResearcher62 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Awards
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to submit primary evidence of his receipt of the grants, relying only on third-party testimonial letters. AAO also agreed with the Director that the grants were not shown to be awards 'for excellence' based on past achievement, as the submitted documentation described funding of future research projects and the foundation supported a large number of projects (581 out of 3,629 applications).
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 failed to submit primary evidence of his receipt of the grants, relying only on third-party testimonial letters. AAO also agreed with the Director that the grants were not shown to be awards 'for excellence' based on past achievement, as the submitted documentation described funding of future research projects and the foundation supported a large number of projects (581 out of 3,629 applications).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_03_B2203; source_row=25540 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the Petitioner's expert letters attested to the novelty and utility of his research, they did not provide specific examples of contributions rising to the level of major significance, and the citation evidence (including top-10% rankings) did not establish major significance without additional context.…
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 Petitioner's expert letters attested to the novelty and utility of his research, they did not provide specific examples of contributions rising to the level of major significance, and the citation evidence (including top-10% rankings) did not establish major significance without additional context. Prospective impacts and building upon his work by some researchers were insufficient to show the field views his work as majorly significant.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_14_B2203; source_row=25603 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's determination, finding that the Petitioner's awards — including Finalist certificates, a Bronze award, and various silver/bronze recognitions — were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. Many competitions had large numbers of winners, and independent evidence of recognition outside the awarding organizations was lacking.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's determination, finding that the Petitioner's awards — including Finalist certificates, a Bronze award, and various silver/bronze recognitions — were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. Many competitions had large numbers of winners, and independent evidence of recognition outside the awarding organizations was lacking.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_02_B2203; source_row=25535 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
High salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed. The Petitioner's actual earnings based on pay statements were approximately $91,250 annually — above average but not 'significantly high' — and he had not established that he actually earned the $200,000 in his employment agreement. No geographic comparison data was provided.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed. The Petitioner's actual earnings based on pay statements were approximately $91,250 annually — above average but not 'significantly high' — and he had not established that he actually earned the $200,000 in his employment agreement. No geographic comparison data was provided.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_02_B2203; source_row=25538 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that neither the Finalist certificates from the advertising festival nor the Bronze award met the standard of a major, internationally recognized award. The Petitioner's festival certificates were not even awards, and the Bronze award lacked evidence of widespread media recognition or public familiarity comparable to a Nobel Prize or Academy Award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that neither the Finalist certificates from the advertising festival nor the Bronze award met the standard of a major, internationally recognized award. The Petitioner's festival certificates were not even awards, and the Bronze award lacked evidence of widespread media recognition or public familiarity comparable to a Nobel Prize or Academy Award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_02_B2203; source_row=25534 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed, finding that the support letters praised the Petitioner's talents but lacked specific, probative information demonstrating how his copywriter role was leading or critical to the overall outcome of his employers' activities. The $5 million campaign reference lacked contextual evidence to confirm its significance.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed, finding that the support letters praised the Petitioner's talents but lacked specific, probative information demonstrating how his copywriter role was leading or critical to the overall outcome of his employers' activities. The $5 million campaign reference lacked contextual evidence to confirm its significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_02_B2203; source_row=25537 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering30 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-one threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
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 the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-one threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-23_07_B2203; source_row=25571 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c