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 13621–13630
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences17 papers41 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed she met the leading or critical role criterion based on her employment with the Petitioner, a company with a distinguished industry reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed she met the leading or critical role criterion based on her employment with the Petitioner, a company with a distinguished industry reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-29_01_B2203; source_row=25125 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
continuing to work in area of extraordinary ability
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed her area of expertise is oncology, not narrowly medical research, and her role at the pharmaceutical company relies on that expertise; the Director's adverse finding is withdrawn.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed her area of expertise is oncology, not narrowly medical research, and her role at the pharmaceutical company relies on that expertise; the Director's adverse finding is withdrawn.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-29_01_B2203; source_row=25127 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences17 papers41 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO weighed all evidence, acknowledged the Beneficiary is an accomplished early-career scientist, but found citation rates of 46 and 41, one peer review, one seminar co-chair, an uncited book chapter, a postdoctoral DoD grant for early investigators, AACR associate membership, and recommendation letters comparing her to peers do not establish she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO weighed all evidence, acknowledged the Beneficiary is an accomplished early-career scientist, but found citation rates of 46 and 41, one peer review, one seminar co-chair, an uncited book chapter, a postdoctoral DoD grant for early investigators, AACR associate membership, and recommendation letters comparing her to peers do not establish she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-29_01_B2203; source_row=25126 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO noted (by reference to prior proceedings) that the Director found the Petitioner met the judging criterion, and this was not disturbed on appeal or motion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted (by reference to prior proceedings) that the Director found the Petitioner met the judging criterion, and this was not disturbed on appeal or motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-29_02_B2203; source_row=25130 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 formally reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed step 1, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish the requisite 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 formally reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed step 1, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish the requisite acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-29_02_B2203; source_row=25131 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO noted (by reference to prior proceedings) that the Director found the Petitioner met the awards criterion, and this was not disturbed on appeal or motion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted (by reference to prior proceedings) that the Director found the Petitioner met the awards criterion, and this was not disturbed on appeal or motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-29_02_B2203; source_row=25129 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that several articles only mention the Petitioner briefly or in passing and are therefore not 'about' him as required. The two articles focusing on the Petitioner (in Haute Living and Toys for Boys) appeared in local/regional editions and the record did not establish they appeared in major media with significant national or international distribution.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that several articles only mention the Petitioner briefly or in passing and are therefore not 'about' him as required. The two articles focusing on the Petitioner (in Haute Living and Toys for Boys) appeared in local/regional editions and the record did not establish they appeared in major media with significant national or international distribution.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-28_05_B2203; source_row=25118 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the letters showed the Petitioner's unique talents contributed to specific restaurant projects but did not demonstrate impact on the wider hospitality field. Success within individual restaurant projects does not constitute original contributions of major significance to the broader field, and the evidence did not identify specific contributions with 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 the letters showed the Petitioner's unique talents contributed to specific restaurant projects but did not demonstrate impact on the wider hospitality field. Success within individual restaurant projects does not constitute original contributions of major significance to the broader field, and the evidence did not identify specific contributions with field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-28_05_B2203; source_row=25119 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c