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 13541–13550
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
Most submitted articles lacked required dates and/or authors; post-filing articles were excluded; and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Commonalty and serbiamirror.com are professional or major trade publications or other major media, despite the RFE specifically requesting circulation and audience evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Most submitted articles lacked required dates and/or authors; post-filing articles were excluded; and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Commonalty and serbiamirror.com are professional or major trade publications or other major media, despite the RFE specifically requesting circulation and audience evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-11_01_B2203; source_row=25210 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that its prior decision had already considered this evidence and explained in detail why it was neither scholarly nor published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media.
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 that its prior decision had already considered this evidence and explained in detail why it was neither scholarly nor published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-11_03_B2203; source_row=25219 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concurred with the Director that the Beneficiary reviewed papers for a journal and served as guest associate editor, satisfying the judging criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO concurred with the Director that the Beneficiary reviewed papers for a journal and served as guest associate editor, satisfying the judging criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-11_02_B2203; source_row=25215 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner, which has a distinguished reputation, fulfills the leading or critical role criterion, disagreeing with the Director on this point.
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 Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner, which has a distinguished reputation, fulfills the leading or critical role criterion, disagreeing with the Director on this point.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-11_02_B2203; source_row=25217 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organization
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that its prior decision had thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the foundation evidence and the Beneficiary's role within it, and that the Petitioner's vague assertions about 'other roles' did not point to specific evidence or a misapplied law or policy.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that its prior decision had thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the foundation evidence and the Beneficiary's role within it, and that the Petitioner's vague assertions about 'other roles' did not point to specific evidence or a misapplied law or policy.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-11_03_B2203; source_row=25220 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's articles were not scholarly because the publisher confirmed they are intended to be accessible to the general public, and the Petitioner did not show the publication qualifies as a professional/trade publication or has the circulation of a major medium.
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 Petitioner's articles were not scholarly because the publisher confirmed they are intended to be accessible to the general public, and the Petitioner did not show the publication qualifies as a professional/trade publication or has the circulation of a major medium.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-10_01_B2203; source_row=25205 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial three-criteria threshold, but noted in advisory fashion that the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international 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 conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial three-criteria threshold, but noted in advisory fashion that the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-02-10_01_B2203; source_row=25207 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c