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 13711–13720
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering14 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found criterion (v) satisfied, noting that professors provided technical details about the Petitioner's contributions and that a heavily-cited article arose from his research, establishing the nature and significance of his contributions. AAO withdrew the Director's contrary finding.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found criterion (v) satisfied, noting that professors provided technical details about the Petitioner's contributions and that a heavily-cited article arose from his research, establishing the nature and significance of his contributions. AAO withdrew the Director's contrary finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_02_B2203; source_row=25018 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering14 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO did not find this criterion met; it is addressed implicitly by noting the C&EN article does not name the Petitioner and amounts to a promotional release by the ACS about its own journal, but AAO does not make a separate explicit step-1 ruling on criterion (iii) since the analysis is folded into the final merits discussion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not find this criterion met; it is addressed implicitly by noting the C&EN article does not name the Petitioner and amounts to a promotional release by the ACS about its own journal, but AAO does not make a separate explicit step-1 ruling on criterion (iii) since the analysis is folded into the final merits discussion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_02_B2203; source_row=25016 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO did not formally conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the three-criteria threshold, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish the required 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 did not formally conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the three-criteria threshold, but noted in dicta that the record does not establish the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_03_B2203; source_row=25027 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
artistic display of work
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner meets the artistic display criterion, as the record reflects she displayed her rugs at several artistic exhibitions.
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 the Petitioner meets the artistic display criterion, as the record reflects she displayed her rugs at several artistic exhibitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_03_B2203; source_row=25026 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO declined to reach the scholarly articles criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the three-criteria threshold regardless of its outcome, making any finding on this criterion unnecessary.
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 declined to reach the scholarly articles criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the three-criteria threshold regardless of its outcome, making any finding on this criterion unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_03_B2203; source_row=25025 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical12 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the Step 1 threshold, though AAO noted in dicta that the record in aggregate would not support the required finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the Step 1 threshold, though AAO noted in dicta that the record in aggregate would not support the required finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_05_B2203; source_row=25038 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to reopen requirements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Director improperly applied the BIA standard requiring evidence to have been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. USCIS instead defines 'new facts' as facts relevant to the issues raised on motion that have not been previously submitted, without requiring prior unavailability. The Director therefore did not sufficiently address the newly submitted facts and did not properly adjudicate the motion to reopen.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Director improperly applied the BIA standard requiring evidence to have been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. USCIS instead defines 'new facts' as facts relevant to the issues raised on motion that have not been previously submitted, without requiring prior unavailability. The Director therefore did not sufficiently address the newly submitted facts and did not properly adjudicate the motion to reopen.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-01-16_01_B2203; source_row=25014 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c