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 13491–13500
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, but noted in the alternative that the record in the aggregate does not support the required acclaim and recognition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, but noted in the alternative that the record in the aggregate does not support the required acclaim and recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-24_02_B2203; source_row=25284 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision on this criterion. The La Nacion article was actually in the record and establishes it is about the Petitioner and her work. Several articles focused on productions where the Petitioner played the title role and specifically praised her performance, and the publication was established as a major medium.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision on this criterion. The La Nacion article was actually in the record and establishes it is about the Petitioner and her work. Several articles focused on productions where the Petitioner played the title role and specifically praised her performance, and the publication was established as a major medium.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-24_01_B2203; source_row=25273 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to address the prior deficiencies regarding the article's subject matter and the publications' status as major media, and therefore did not overcome AAO's prior conclusions.
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 address the prior deficiencies regarding the article's subject matter and the publications' status as major media, and therefore did not overcome AAO's prior conclusions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-20_02_B2203; source_row=25269 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO acknowledged some merit to the de facto recipient argument but concluded the Petitioner still failed to show that finalist status equates to a prize or award and failed to establish national or international recognition of the award itself.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO acknowledged some merit to the de facto recipient argument but concluded the Petitioner still failed to show that finalist status equates to a prize or award and failed to establish national or international recognition of the award itself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-20_02_B2203; source_row=25268 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the motion submissions did not present new facts showing that the Petitioner's clinical work would impact the field of naturopathic medicine or U.S. healthcare industry broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients she individually serves. Serving patients from multiple states and referring some to out-of-state treatment does not establish broader field-level implications.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the motion submissions did not present new facts showing that the Petitioner's clinical work would impact the field of naturopathic medicine or U.S. healthcare industry broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients she individually serves. Serving patients from multiple states and referring some to out-of-state treatment does not establish broader field-level implications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-20_01_B5203; source_row=25265 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the three identical letters were not independently written and inferred the Petitioner or someone acting on his behalf was the true author, and that simply repeating regulatory language did not satisfy the burden of proof; the fourth letter did not even reference the Petitioner.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the three identical letters were not independently written and inferred the Petitioner or someone acting on his behalf was the true author, and that simply repeating regulatory language did not satisfy the burden of proof; the fourth letter did not even reference the Petitioner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-20_02_B2203; source_row=25270 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's judging roles lacked evidence of selectivity or prominence, his publications had some citation history but were insufficient to show top-field status, his leading roles were not corroborated by detailed documentary evidence, and his Venezuelan medal was not recognized as honoring achievement in immunology.…
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 roles lacked evidence of selectivity or prominence, his publications had some citation history but were insufficient to show top-field status, his leading roles were not corroborated by detailed documentary evidence, and his Venezuelan medal was not recognized as honoring achievement in immunology. Overall, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing the Petitioner among the top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-20_01_B2203; source_row=25264 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c