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 14081–14090
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesResearch Scientist60 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted a comprehensive final merits review and found the evidence insufficient. The judging experience did not distinguish the Petitioner as being at the top of the field; the citation data showed the field noticed his work but not at the level of sustained acclaim; awards had limited eligibility pools; expert letters either speculated about future impact or parroted the regulatory language; and the single American S…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted a comprehensive final merits review and found the evidence insufficient. The judging experience did not distinguish the Petitioner as being at the top of the field; the citation data showed the field noticed his work but not at the level of sustained acclaim; awards had limited eligibility pools; expert letters either speculated about future impact or parroted the regulatory language; and the single American Scientist article did not reflect sustained recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_03_B2203; source_row=24599 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesResearch Scientist60 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO addressed this in the final merits determination rather than as a standalone criterion finding, concluding that the evidence did not establish original contributions already recognized as majorly significant in the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO addressed this in the final merits determination rather than as a standalone criterion finding, concluding that the evidence did not establish original contributions already recognized as majorly significant in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_03_B2203; source_row=24596 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's two publications lack independent citations, his research findings have not been implemented or applauded by others, some reference letters do not address his wireless security research, his collaboration plans lack supporting evidence of interest from NIST or U.S. university researchers, and he has not published since July 2014.…
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's two publications lack independent citations, his research findings have not been implemented or applauded by others, some reference letters do not address his wireless security research, his collaboration plans lack supporting evidence of interest from NIST or U.S. university researchers, and he has not published since July 2014. Membership in the National Society of Leadership and Success post-dates the petition filing and does not indicate a record of success in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_01_B5203; source_row=24585 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although AAO declined to fully conduct the final merits determination since the initial evidence threshold was not met, it reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded it does not support sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although AAO declined to fully conduct the final merits determination since the initial evidence threshold was not met, it reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded it does not support sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_01_B2203; source_row=24583 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
The patent showed originality but not major significance in the field. Reference letters were mostly from persons outside the field, lacked specificity, and used hyperbolic language without explaining how contributions were of major significance. The business partner letter spoke to the employer's success but not the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The patent showed originality but not major significance in the field. Reference letters were mostly from persons outside the field, lacked specificity, and used hyperbolic language without explaining how contributions were of major significance. The business partner letter spoke to the employer's success but not the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance. The museum's originality of subject matter did not establish demonstrable impact on the traditional footwear industry.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_01_B2203; source_row=24581 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed that the People's China articles were about the Petitioner (they were about his employer), found neither article identified an author as required, and found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any of the publications were major trade publications or major media. The submitted videos lacked required elements (no written transcripts, not published material).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed that the People's China articles were about the Petitioner (they were about his employer), found neither article identified an author as required, and found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any of the publications were major trade publications or major media. The submitted videos lacked required elements (no written transcripts, not published material).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_01_B2203; source_row=24580 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to submit a letter from his employer or colleagues confirming his role, and his own letter could not substitute for employer letters. The reference letters lacked personal knowledge and detailed probative information about his leading or critical role.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to submit a letter from his employer or colleagues confirming his role, and his own letter could not substitute for employer letters. The reference letters lacked personal knowledge and detailed probative information about his leading or critical role. The Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient evidence that either the company or the museum had a distinguished reputation, as he provided no comparative data against competitors or other museums.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_01_B2203; source_row=24582 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not demonstrate how authorship of a book qualifies as a scholarly article in a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. The Petitioner also failed to show the book was written for 'learned' individuals or that it constitutes a professional or major trade publication with significant circulation.
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 Petitioner did not demonstrate how authorship of a book qualifies as a scholarly article in a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. The Petitioner also failed to show the book was written for 'learned' individuals or that it constitutes a professional or major trade publication with significant circulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_02_B2203; source_row=24591 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
The recommendation letters failed to provide specific, detailed information identifying original contributions and explaining their unusual influence on the field; instead they summarized experience and highlighted exhibitions. Having a unique skill set alone is not a contribution of major significance, and the letters did not demonstrate impact on the overall field beyond limited individual projects.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters failed to provide specific, detailed information identifying original contributions and explaining their unusual influence on the field; instead they summarized experience and highlighted exhibitions. Having a unique skill set alone is not a contribution of major significance, and the letters did not demonstrate impact on the overall field beyond limited individual projects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_02_B2203; source_row=24590 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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
The Petitioner did not establish that Bukhara Sharif qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. The editor's own letters describing the publication are self-promotional and not independent evidence of major-medium status, and the 500-copy circulation figure was not shown to be significant.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not establish that Bukhara Sharif qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. The editor's own letters describing the publication are self-promotional and not independent evidence of major-medium status, and the 500-copy circulation figure was not shown to be significant.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-10-29_02_B2203; source_row=24589 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c