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 14421–14430
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalProfessor
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media or trade publications
Why AAO was not persuaded
The publications were not shown to be professional publications or major media, several articles were not about the Petitioner or lacked an author, and the broadcast appearances were about a medical topic rather than the Petitioner's achievements.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The publications were not shown to be professional publications or major media, several articles were not about the Petitioner or lacked an author, and the broadcast appearances were about a medical topic rather than the Petitioner's achievements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-22_01_B2203; source_row=24226 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Weighing all the evidence, including judging of residency candidates at local institutions, some citations to scholarly articles without comparative data, salary above average but without full-range comparison, awards from over a decade ago not shown to be nationally/internationally recognized, membership based on standard qualifications, and contributions not shown to be of major significance beyond the Petitioner's employ…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Weighing all the evidence, including judging of residency candidates at local institutions, some citations to scholarly articles without comparative data, salary above average but without full-range comparison, awards from over a decade ago not shown to be nationally/internationally recognized, membership based on standard qualifications, and contributions not shown to be of major significance beyond the Petitioner's employer, the record does not establish sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-22_01_B2203; source_row=24232 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalProfessor
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO found the high salary criterion satisfied at step 1, disagreeing with the Director, but at the final merits stage found the salary information insufficient to demonstrate earnings commensurate with 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 +
The AAO found the high salary criterion satisfied at step 1, disagreeing with the Director, but at the final merits stage found the salary information insufficient to demonstrate earnings commensurate with the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-22_01_B2203; source_row=24231 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalProfessor
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner introduced a technique developed by someone else in South Korea and did not show his work devised or substantially improved the procedure, or that it had a major impact on the overall field beyond his employer.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner introduced a technique developed by someone else in South Korea and did not show his work devised or substantially improved the procedure, or that it had a major impact on the overall field beyond his employer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-22_01_B2203; source_row=24228 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the judging criterion satisfied at step 1, disagreeing with the Director, but concluded at the final merits stage that this judging activity was not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the judging criterion satisfied at step 1, disagreeing with the Director, but concluded at the final merits stage that this judging activity was not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-22_01_B2203; source_row=24227 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record reflects that the Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications including the Brazilian Journal of Orthopedics and Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques.
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 record reflects that the Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications including the Brazilian Journal of Orthopedics and Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-22_01_B2203; source_row=24229 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO noted no final merits determination was required given failure at step one, but conducted an alternative review and found the record did not demonstrate sustained 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 +
The AAO noted no final merits determination was required given failure at step one, but conducted an alternative review and found the record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-17_01_B2203; source_row=24223 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that while the Petitioner's citations and reference letters show some impact, neither the volume of citations, citation rankings, prestige of publications, nor the letters established that his work had been widely accepted, implemented, or had remarkably impacted the field at the level of major significance. Evidence of potential future impact and incremental research advances was insufficient.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that while the Petitioner's citations and reference letters show some impact, neither the volume of citations, citation rankings, prestige of publications, nor the letters established that his work had been widely accepted, implemented, or had remarkably impacted the field at the level of major significance. Evidence of potential future impact and incremental research advances was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-17_01_B2203; source_row=24222 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record confirms the Petitioner served as a manuscript reviewer for professional publications including Nano Energy, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, and Journal of Power Sources.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The record confirms the Petitioner served as a manuscript reviewer for professional publications including Nano Energy, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, and Journal of Power Sources.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-07-17_01_B2203; source_row=24220 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c