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 15141–15150
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Environment / Energy
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, noting she has received 11 patents from China's state intellectual property office as utility patents and developed water purification methods successfully utilized by companies in China.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, noting she has received 11 patents from China's state intellectual property office as utility patents and developed water purification methods successfully utilized by companies in China.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-20_02_B2203; source_row=23415 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
The AAO found that the broadcast evidence was incomplete and insufficiently specific, tangential references showed only some acclaim but not top-tier standing, and the judging and membership evidence was properly weighed within the Kazarian framework and did not demonstrate sustained 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 +
The AAO found that the broadcast evidence was incomplete and insufficiently specific, tangential references showed only some acclaim but not top-tier standing, and the judging and membership evidence was properly weighed within the Kazarian framework and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-20_01_B2203; source_row=23413 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
AAO did not formally conduct a final merits determination since the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support the required acclaim or standing 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 did not formally conduct a final merits determination since the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support the required acclaim or standing at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-19_01_B2203; source_row=23412 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the petitioner's own production company lacked a distinguished reputation; her acting roles in specific productions did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for the overall theater companies; and recommendation letters did not contain detailed probative information specifically addressing how her roles were leading or critical for any organization.
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's own production company lacked a distinguished reputation; her acting roles in specific productions did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for the overall theater companies; and recommendation letters did not contain detailed probative information specifically addressing how her roles were leading or critical for any organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-19_01_B2203; source_row=23411 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The congratulatory certificate and AustralianStage.com listing did not identify the petitioner as an award recipient, the website's readership was not established as indicative of national recognition, nominees were limited to productions appearing on a single theater's stage, and the regional arts funding grant did not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The congratulatory certificate and AustralianStage.com listing did not identify the petitioner as an award recipient, the website's readership was not established as indicative of national recognition, nominees were limited to productions appearing on a single theater's stage, and the regional arts funding grant did not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-19_01_B2203; source_row=23407 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the director that the record supports the petitioner meeting this criterion, noting she published two theatrical reviews for NY Theatre Guide.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the director that the record supports the petitioner meeting this criterion, noting she published two theatrical reviews for NY Theatre Guide.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-19_01_B2203; source_row=23409 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the record was incomplete because evidence covering periods after the May 22, 2017 priority date was not yet available when the Director decided the case, and remanded so that updated evidence could be obtained and reviewed.
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 record was incomplete because evidence covering periods after the May 22, 2017 priority date was not yet available when the Director decided the case, and remanded so that updated evidence could be obtained and reviewed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-18_01_B5203; source_row=23406 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 that the petitioner's citation counts fell far below Clarivate Analytics' threshold for highly cited articles, the citing articles did not distinguish her work as foundational, the recommendation letters lacked specifics about how her work influenced the field, and research funding alone is not a contribution of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the petitioner's citation counts fell far below Clarivate Analytics' threshold for highly cited articles, the citing articles did not distinguish her work as foundational, the recommendation letters lacked specifics about how her work influenced the field, and research funding alone is not a contribution of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-11_02_B2203; source_row=23404 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The 2018 letters and grounds pass post-date filing and cannot establish eligibility; regardless, the evidence does not show how the Petitioner's role fits within the organizational hierarchy, nor that serving as an additional representative or sectional vice chair constitutes a leading role, nor that his contributions were of significant importance to the organizations' outcomes so as to be critical.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The 2018 letters and grounds pass post-date filing and cannot establish eligibility; regardless, the evidence does not show how the Petitioner's role fits within the organizational hierarchy, nor that serving as an additional representative or sectional vice chair constitutes a leading role, nor that his contributions were of significant importance to the organizations' outcomes so as to be critical.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-12-11_01_B2203; source_row=23398 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c