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.
AAO agreed that Petitioner's published articles in IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, Intelligent Decision Technologies, and Procedia Computer Science met this criterion.
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 Petitioner's published articles in IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, Intelligent Decision Technologies, and Procedia Computer Science met this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-28_01_B2203; source_row=24170 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO disagreed with the director and found Petitioner performed a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, having developed two systems that improved productivity and employee satisfaction.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the director and found Petitioner performed a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, having developed two systems that improved productivity and employee satisfaction.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-28_01_B2203; source_row=24171 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
What the decision said
AAO did not specifically resolve this criterion at step one because three other criteria were already established, though high salary was referenced in the final merits determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not specifically resolve this criterion at step one because three other criteria were already established, though high salary was referenced in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-28_01_B2203; source_row=24172 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that letters attesting to the Petitioner's role did not describe how he performed a leading or critical role, that the infrastructure projects do not constitute organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation, and that the foundation lacked evidence of a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that letters attesting to the Petitioner's role did not describe how he performed a leading or critical role, that the infrastructure projects do not constitute organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation, and that the foundation lacked evidence of a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-25_05_B2203; source_row=24155 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Due to the same date discrepancies identified under criterion (i), AAO found the record did not establish when the event took place or what role the Petitioner actually filled, and therefore the Petitioner had not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that he participated in judging the works of others.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Due to the same date discrepancies identified under criterion (i), AAO found the record did not establish when the event took place or what role the Petitioner actually filled, and therefore the Petitioner had not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that he participated in judging the works of others.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-25_05_B2203; source_row=24152 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
AAO found the Petitioner's claimed contributions were largely prospective rather than already realized, and the record lacked evidence showing how his financing model or financial theory influenced others in the field. The record also did not demonstrate that the buildings had been built or quantify the Petitioner's specific contributions.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner's claimed contributions were largely prospective rather than already realized, and the record lacked evidence showing how his financing model or financial theory influenced others in the field. The record also did not demonstrate that the buildings had been built or quantify the Petitioner's specific contributions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-25_05_B2203; source_row=24153 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to distinguish membership from employment, did not show his specific contributions met the organization's stated criteria, and did not demonstrate the admission criteria amount to outstanding achievements. AAO also found the organization was in the health and sanitation domain, not in the Petitioner's financial field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to distinguish membership from employment, did not show his specific contributions met the organization's stated criteria, and did not demonstrate the admission criteria amount to outstanding achievements. AAO also found the organization was in the health and sanitation domain, not in the Petitioner's financial field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-25_05_B2203; source_row=24151 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner resolved some discrepancies (name and nickname) but not the date discrepancies, which original Chinese documents confirmed were not mere transcription errors. New inconsistencies about whether he won an award or honorable mention also emerged on appeal. Even if the award were established, the Petitioner failed to show national or international recognition due to the absence of a video transcript.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner resolved some discrepancies (name and nickname) but not the date discrepancies, which original Chinese documents confirmed were not mere transcription errors. New inconsistencies about whether he won an award or honorable mention also emerged on appeal. Even if the award were established, the Petitioner failed to show national or international recognition due to the absence of a video transcript.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-06-25_05_B2203; source_row=24150 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c