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 14701–14710
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record did not support a finding of sustained 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 conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record did not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-05-01_02_B2203; source_row=23924 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
While letters described the Beneficiary's notable project contributions, the Petitioner did not show these resulted in national or international acclaim; evidence of his standards work also lacked context showing sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
While letters described the Beneficiary's notable project contributions, the Petitioner did not show these resulted in national or international acclaim; evidence of his standards work also lacked context showing sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_03_B2203; source_row=23908 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the awards did not establish national or international acclaim; one was state-specific and the other, while from a national society, lacked sufficient evidence of 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 found that the awards did not establish national or international acclaim; one was state-specific and the other, while from a national society, lacked sufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_03_B2203; source_row=23905 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that despite meeting three criteria, the totality of the evidence failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage 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 +
AAO found that despite meeting three criteria, the totality of the evidence failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_03_B2203; source_row=23912 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Although the Beneficiary's membership in the scientific research society was notable, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how it is indicative of one of the small percentage who has risen to the 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 the Beneficiary's membership in the scientific research society was notable, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how it is indicative of one of the small percentage who has risen to the top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_03_B2203; source_row=23906 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
None of the cited bases — a recommendation letter, translation work, propositions to a Saudi Prince, or roles at a university — established that the Petitioner held a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
None of the cited bases — a recommendation letter, translation work, propositions to a Saudi Prince, or roles at a university — established that the Petitioner held a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_02_B2203; source_row=23902 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
Awards were for participation/youth/student activities and not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Awards were for participation/youth/student activities and not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_02_B2203; source_row=23897 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Petitioner offered no salary evidence; his argument relied on a future probability rather than already-commanded high remuneration as the regulation requires.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner offered no salary evidence; his argument relied on a future probability rather than already-commanded high remuneration as the regulation requires.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_02_B2203; source_row=23903 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Petitioner did not provide evidence that his conference paper, development study presented to a Prince, translation of an autism kit into Arabic, or supervision of a master's researcher had major significance or measurable impact on the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner did not provide evidence that his conference paper, development study presented to a Prince, translation of an autism kit into Arabic, or supervision of a master's researcher had major significance or measurable impact on the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_02_B2203; source_row=23900 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c