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 14821–14830
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager50 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's citation record, reference letters, device invention, and other evidence insufficient to show his contributions rose to the level of major significance in the field of anesthesiology. Citations were limited, articles citing him did not treat his work as authoritative, his invention had not been shown to be widely used, and the reference letters were not sufficiently specific or probative.
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 citation record, reference letters, device invention, and other evidence insufficient to show his contributions rose to the level of major significance in the field of anesthesiology. Citations were limited, articles citing him did not treat his work as authoritative, his invention had not been shown to be widely used, and the reference letters were not sufficiently specific or probative.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-03_01_B2203; source_row=23780 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
AAO held that statements in an RFE do not constitute a final or official decision, and its de novo review found the published material criterion was not satisfied.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that statements in an RFE do not constitute a final or official decision, and its de novo review found the published material criterion was not satisfied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-03_02_B2203; source_row=23784 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the scope of eligibility is limited to the current petition's record, and that the prior director finding on a different petition is not binding. AAO's own de novo review determined the awards criterion was not satisfied.
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 scope of eligibility is limited to the current petition's record, and that the prior director finding on a different petition is not binding. AAO's own de novo review determined the awards criterion was not satisfied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-03_02_B2203; source_row=23783 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record confirms the Petitioner served as a reviewer for professional journals including the Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care between 2006 and 2017.
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 reviewer for professional journals including the Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care between 2006 and 2017.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-03_01_B2203; source_row=23778 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that none of the four claimed awards met the criterion. The Syria plaque was for participation, not a prize for excellence. The 2005 Ukrainian competition grand prize lacked corroborating evidence of national/international recognition and contained inconsistencies about award categories. The 1998 Ukrainian television competition award lacked sufficient evidence of national or international recognition for excellence.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that none of the four claimed awards met the criterion. The Syria plaque was for participation, not a prize for excellence. The 2005 Ukrainian competition grand prize lacked corroborating evidence of national/international recognition and contained inconsistencies about award categories. The 1998 Ukrainian television competition award lacked sufficient evidence of national or international recognition for excellence. The 2008 festival diploma was not established to represent an award for excellence or to be nationally/internationally recognized.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-02_01_B2203; source_row=23767 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
AAO had previously found the Petitioner did not meet the published material criterion; the Petitioner did not submit new evidence on this criterion in the current motion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO had previously found the Petitioner did not meet the published material criterion; the Petitioner did not submit new evidence on this criterion in the current motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-02_01_B2203; source_row=23770 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to fully address the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of at least three criteria, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support the required level of expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to fully address the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of at least three criteria, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-02_01_B2203; source_row=23771 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c