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.
The only qualifying experience listed for the Beneficiary is 16 months as an applications engineer with a prior employer, but the record contains no letter or other corroborating evidence of those job duties or dates of employment.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The only qualifying experience listed for the Beneficiary is 16 months as an applications engineer with a prior employer, but the record contains no letter or other corroborating evidence of those job duties or dates of employment.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-05-30_02_B5203; source_row=22704 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination – sustained acclaim and top of field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's two manuscript reviews, six published articles with ~90 total citations, journal impact factor evidence, and recommendation letters did not collectively demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of her field. The recommendation letters showed impact on individual researchers but not major significance to the field as a whole.
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 Petitioner's two manuscript reviews, six published articles with ~90 total citations, journal impact factor evidence, and recommendation letters did not collectively demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of her field. The recommendation letters showed impact on individual researchers but not major significance to the field as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-05-30_03_B2203; source_row=22708 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the record includes several articles in major media about the Petitioner and his co-founding of the company, satisfying the plain language of this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the record includes several articles in major media about the Petitioner and his co-founding of the company, satisfying the plain language of this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-05-30_01_B2203; source_row=22688 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
Newspaper articles lacked required publication dates, newspaper names, and authors. Internet articles appeared to come from third-party forums rather than original publishers, and the record lacked evidence of circulation or readership. Moreover, the articles were about tournament results generally, not about the Petitioner specifically.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Newspaper articles lacked required publication dates, newspaper names, and authors. Internet articles appeared to come from third-party forums rather than original publishers, and the record lacked evidence of circulation or readership. Moreover, the articles were about tournament results generally, not about the Petitioner specifically.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-05-29_01_B2203; source_row=22682 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c