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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other32 reviews
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Publons comparisons unreliable due to mismatched fields and self-reported data, found the peer reviews were concentrated in 2017 rather than sustained, found the Google Scholar citations incomplete due to untranslated portions and inconsistent numbers, found the Microsoft Research graph unverifiable, and found the recommendation letters insufficient to establish top-of-field status.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Publons comparisons unreliable due to mismatched fields and self-reported data, found the peer reviews were concentrated in 2017 rather than sustained, found the Google Scholar citations incomplete due to untranslated portions and inconsistent numbers, found the Microsoft Research graph unverifiable, and found the recommendation letters insufficient to establish top-of-field status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-19_01_B2203; source_row=23294 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 conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, though it informally noted the record does not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
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 failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, though it informally noted the record does not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-19_04_B2203; source_row=23309 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the Beneficiary's role as founder and artistic director of an organization receiving competitive city grants established 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 +
AAO agreed that the Beneficiary's role as founder and artistic director of an organization receiving competitive city grants established a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-19_03_B2203; source_row=23302 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
The Petitioner did not identify what specific original content or concepts she contributed to the code drafting, did not demonstrate the extent of her role among two dozen other researchers, and the supporting letter was conclusory without explaining how her work significantly impacted the field. Conference participation also did not show major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not identify what specific original content or concepts she contributed to the code drafting, did not demonstrate the extent of her role among two dozen other researchers, and the supporting letter was conclusory without explaining how her work significantly impacted the field. Conference participation also did not show major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-11-16_01_B2203; source_row=23287 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c