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 15371–15380
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why the evidence was persuasive
The prior AAO decision found the high salary criterion met, determining the Petitioner earned a high salary among theatre directors in Nepal. The motion decision reaffirms this but notes the record as a whole did not establish 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 prior AAO decision found the high salary criterion met, determining the Petitioner earned a high salary among theatre directors in Nepal. The motion decision reaffirms this but notes the record as a whole did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-01_01_B2203; source_row=23148 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The prior AAO appeal decision found the judging criterion was met; this motion decision does not disturb that finding but notes the criterion was satisfied in the final merits analysis context.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The prior AAO appeal decision found the judging criterion was met; this motion decision does not disturb that finding but notes the criterion was satisfied in the final merits analysis context.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-01_01_B2203; source_row=23146 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Both the Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion based on his service on editorial boards for journals and as a peer reviewer of manuscripts.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Both the Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion based on his service on editorial boards for journals and as a peer reviewer of manuscripts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-01_02_B2203; source_row=23150 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to reach a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but observed in dicta that the record does not support 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 +
AAO explicitly declined to reach a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but observed in dicta that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-10-01_02_B2203; source_row=23153 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record shows original contributions but not that they rose to the level of major significance in the field. Letters attested to positive impact on individual companies but did not demonstrate broader field-wide impact. Products lacked corroborating evidence of field-level significance, and one acquired technology's fate in the industry was unclear.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record shows original contributions but not that they rose to the level of major significance in the field. Letters attested to positive impact on individual companies but did not demonstrate broader field-wide impact. Products lacked corroborating evidence of field-level significance, and one acquired technology's fate in the industry was unclear.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-09-28_01_B2203; source_row=23140 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the company-focused articles do not constitute published material about the Petitioner, as they merely identify him as co-founder without discussing his individual abilities.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the company-focused articles do not constitute published material about the Petitioner, as they merely identify him as co-founder without discussing his individual abilities. As to the Le Temps article, AAO declined to reach the publication's qualifications because the article was in a foreign language with only an uncertified translation and no copy of the original, failing the regulatory requirement for a certified English translation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-09-28_01_B2203; source_row=23139 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the comparative salary evidence submitted on appeal established that the Petitioner commanded a high salary in relation to others in 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 the comparative salary evidence submitted on appeal established that the Petitioner commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-09-28_01_B2203; source_row=23142 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to fully address the final merits because the step-one threshold was not met, but noted in passing the record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to fully address the final merits because the step-one threshold was not met, but noted in passing the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-09-28_01_B2203; source_row=23143 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed, noting the Petitioner's leading role heading a group of 25 employees and serving as Director of Product Innovation, and his critical role in developing systems that significantly decreased time to launch user engagement strategies, improving growth and revenue.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed, noting the Petitioner's leading role heading a group of 25 employees and serving as Director of Product Innovation, and his critical role in developing systems that significantly decreased time to launch user engagement strategies, improving growth and revenue.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-09-28_01_B2203; source_row=23141 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c