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 151–160
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
Although the Petitioner previously claimed this criterion, he did not contest SCOPS' denial on appeal, so the issue is waived.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Although the Petitioner previously claimed this criterion, he did not contest SCOPS' denial on appeal, so the issue is waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B2203; source_row=45061 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO noted that while SCOPS did not explicitly count this criterion in the step-one section, it was treated as established in the final merits analysis, and AAO credited it accordingly.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted that while SCOPS did not explicitly count this criterion in the step-one section, it was treated as established in the final merits analysis, and AAO credited it accordingly.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_02_B2203; source_row=45073 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
What the decision said
The Petitioner did not contest SCOPS' finding on appeal, so AAO considered the claim waived. AAO noted this in a footnote citing Matter of O-R-E- and Matter of R-A-M-.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not contest SCOPS' finding on appeal, so AAO considered the claim waived. AAO noted this in a footnote citing Matter of O-R-E- and Matter of R-A-M-.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_02_B2203; source_row=45069 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences114 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's citation figures were not contextualized to show major significance; aggregate citation counts reflect an overall publication record without identifying which specific contributions the field considers majorly significant. Reference letters were too general and conclusory, failing to explain how the Petitioner's work has had widespread impact or influence.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's citation figures were not contextualized to show major significance; aggregate citation counts reflect an overall publication record without identifying which specific contributions the field considers majorly significant. Reference letters were too general and conclusory, failing to explain how the Petitioner's work has had widespread impact or influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_03_B2203; source_row=45045 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The documentation shows coverage of the Petitioner's work without any substantive discussion about the Petitioner herself; she appears only as a listed author in reference sections. The published material must be about the person, not merely related to her work.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The documentation shows coverage of the Petitioner's work without any substantive discussion about the Petitioner herself; she appears only as a listed author in reference sections. The published material must be about the person, not merely related to her work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_03_B2203; source_row=45043 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the evidence shows national or international recognition for excellence in her field; she failed to establish acknowledgment of the fellowships or scholarships beyond the universities themselves. The institutional reputation of the awarding universities does not establish the national or international recognition of the specific awards.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the evidence shows national or international recognition for excellence in her field; she failed to establish acknowledgment of the fellowships or scholarships beyond the universities themselves. The institutional reputation of the awarding universities does not establish the national or international recognition of the specific awards.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_03_B2203; source_row=45042 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner made speculative assertions without evidentiary support about JoVE's scope and the likely subject of the reviewed article. The record showed the reviewed article was titled 'Characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis protein Rv3444c by ChIP-seq,' and the Petitioner did not demonstrate this involves vaccine technology or an allied field. Post-filing reviews cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner made speculative assertions without evidentiary support about JoVE's scope and the likely subject of the reviewed article. The record showed the reviewed article was titled 'Characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis protein Rv3444c by ChIP-seq,' and the Petitioner did not demonstrate this involves vaccine technology or an allied field. Post-filing reviews cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_03_B2203; source_row=45044 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the awards were for exceptional teaching, empathy, dedication, and contributions to students' academic success, not for excellence in the field of electrical engineering, and the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of their national or international significance 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 the awards were for exceptional teaching, empathy, dedication, and contributions to students' academic success, not for excellence in the field of electrical engineering, and the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of their national or international significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_02_B2203; source_row=45030 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's presentations at symposia, events, and a creativity contest were not artistic exhibitions or showcases under the plain language of the criterion, and the Petitioner failed to establish that his evidence was of comparable significance to the display criterion.
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 presentations at symposia, events, and a creativity contest were not artistic exhibitions or showcases under the plain language of the criterion, and the Petitioner failed to establish that his evidence was of comparable significance to the display criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_02_B2203; source_row=45036 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c