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 13301–13310
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Physics2,013 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the recommendation letters primarily attested to novelty and utility without explaining how the Beneficiary's work had been widely implemented, remarkably impactful, or influential at a level of major significance. Citation evidence did not show the Beneficiary's work was cited as authoritative or that citation rates demonstrated major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the recommendation letters primarily attested to novelty and utility without explaining how the Beneficiary's work had been widely implemented, remarkably impactful, or influential at a level of major significance. Citation evidence did not show the Beneficiary's work was cited as authoritative or that citation rates demonstrated major significance. Work-related contributions to the petitioning employer were not shown to have significance to the broader field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=25489 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
high salary or other significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that an offer letter alone does not show the Beneficiary 'has commanded' a high salary as required by the regulation because no evidence of actual past earnings (paystubs, W-2s) was provided. Additionally, the wage comparison used 'Financial Analyst' data rather than an appropriate comparison group for the Beneficiary's actual occupation of 'Financial Quantitative Analyst.'
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 finding, concluding that an offer letter alone does not show the Beneficiary 'has commanded' a high salary as required by the regulation because no evidence of actual past earnings (paystubs, W-2s) was provided. Additionally, the wage comparison used 'Financial Analyst' data rather than an appropriate comparison group for the Beneficiary's actual occupation of 'Financial Quantitative Analyst.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=25491 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
AAO found that the limited distribution of the Petitioner's work also limited the scope of his impact on the field. Additionally, three of the four expert letters discussing specific contributions were found to be of diminished evidentiary weight due to strikingly similar structure and wording—sometimes identical—suggesting the Petitioner was the common source.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the limited distribution of the Petitioner's work also limited the scope of his impact on the field. Additionally, three of the four expert letters discussing specific contributions were found to be of diminished evidentiary weight due to strikingly similar structure and wording—sometimes identical—suggesting the Petitioner was the common source. The Petitioner failed to cite specific figures or documentary evidence establishing field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_03_B2203; source_row=25478 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the writings were not published in professional or major trade publications or other major media because they were restricted to institutional clients only and explicitly not available to the general public or the field at large. AAO found that limited distribution is not equivalent to publication, and that the restricted writings cannot have the same field-advancing effect as scholarly journals.…
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the writings were not published in professional or major trade publications or other major media because they were restricted to institutional clients only and explicitly not available to the general public or the field at large. AAO found that limited distribution is not equivalent to publication, and that the restricted writings cannot have the same field-advancing effect as scholarly journals. AAO expressly reserved judgment on whether the writings were scholarly given this threshold finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_03_B2203; source_row=25479 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 in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the letter writers praised the Petitioner's abilities, they did not explain how his specific contributions were of major significance in the field beyond their own companies; the Petitioner failed to provide objective documentary evidence that his investment model was broadly adopted by companies with which he had no direct connection.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
While the letter writers praised the Petitioner's abilities, they did not explain how his specific contributions were of major significance in the field beyond their own companies; the Petitioner failed to provide objective documentary evidence that his investment model was broadly adopted by companies with which he had no direct connection.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_01_B2203; source_row=25464 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The submitted piece was written in an informal style conveying personal perspectives rather than scholarly findings; moreover, the Petitioner failed to show that Nikkei Shimbun actually published the piece, as the printout was from Medium.com and appeared to be a blog post, and the evidence did not establish that the blog is a professional or major trade publication.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
The submitted piece was written in an informal style conveying personal perspectives rather than scholarly findings; moreover, the Petitioner failed to show that Nikkei Shimbun actually published the piece, as the printout was from Medium.com and appeared to be a blog post, and the evidence did not establish that the blog is a professional or major trade publication.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_01_B2203; source_row=25465 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to show the works are scholarly: no copies or substantial excerpts were provided, the publishers' reputations were not established, and the publishing contract showed no editorial control or peer review, with the Petitioner bearing full responsibility for content.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to show the works are scholarly: no copies or substantial excerpts were provided, the publishers' reputations were not established, and the publishing contract showed no editorial control or peer review, with the Petitioner bearing full responsibility for content.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_02_B2203; source_row=25473 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner did not identify the two associations by name in her appeal brief and failed to show that any of the three referenced associations require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts. AAO also noted the Director did not err in not addressing this newly raised claim.
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 did not identify the two associations by name in her appeal brief and failed to show that any of the three referenced associations require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts. AAO also noted the Director did not err in not addressing this newly raised claim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_02_B2203; source_row=25469 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
While AAO agreed that the 'local initiative' characterization was a misreading of the award's scope, AAO nonetheless found the Petitioner failed to establish national or international recognition of the awards. Self-promotional statements by awarding entities carry little weight, and the newspaper articles were post-filing and appeared to derive from press releases rather than independent coverage at the time of the awards.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While AAO agreed that the 'local initiative' characterization was a misreading of the award's scope, AAO nonetheless found the Petitioner failed to establish national or international recognition of the awards. Self-promotional statements by awarding entities carry little weight, and the newspaper articles were post-filing and appeared to derive from press releases rather than independent coverage at the time of the awards.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-30_02_B2203; source_row=25468 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c