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 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 fully conduct the final merits determination because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support the required level of expertise.
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 conduct the final merits determination because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-24_04_B2203; source_row=22262 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Expert letters discuss only potential future impact rather than established, realized impact on the field. The limited citations received (seven and two respectively) were not sufficiently explained as indicative of widespread field impact. Uncorroborated assertions about other groups adopting the Petitioner's methods were given limited weight.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Expert letters discuss only potential future impact rather than established, realized impact on the field. The limited citations received (seven and two respectively) were not sufficiently explained as indicative of widespread field impact. Uncorroborated assertions about other groups adopting the Petitioner's methods were given limited weight. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work had been unusually influential or widely applied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-24_04_B2203; source_row=22260 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Neither the petitioner nor the director addressed this criterion, but AAO found the record contained sufficient evidence: the petitioner presented scholarly engineering research at conferences that appeared in published proceedings.
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 +
Neither the petitioner nor the director addressed this criterion, but AAO found the record contained sufficient evidence: the petitioner presented scholarly engineering research at conferences that appeared in published proceedings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-24_01_B2203; source_row=22242 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the petitioner that the plain language of the criterion must be applied at step one without qualitative inquiry into the selection process. The petitioner's service on the review board, which reviewed capital project decisions and provided feedback, satisfied the criterion.
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 petitioner that the plain language of the criterion must be applied at step one without qualitative inquiry into the selection process. The petitioner's service on the review board, which reviewed capital project decisions and provided feedback, satisfied the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-24_01_B2203; source_row=22241 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
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that two letters sufficiently explained the critical nature of the petitioner's role in The Congo, including managing a $2.7 billion capital project, filling in for absent leadership, and being the primary author for all major business documents. These adequately clarified how the petitioner was critical to the employer's ventures in The Congo.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that two letters sufficiently explained the critical nature of the petitioner's role in The Congo, including managing a $2.7 billion capital project, filling in for absent leadership, and being the primary author for all major business documents. These adequately clarified how the petitioner was critical to the employer's ventures in The Congo.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-24_01_B2203; source_row=22243 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary's standing as affected party under AC21 portability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Director's failure to determine whether the Beneficiary had properly ported was an error requiring remand. The matter must be sent back for the Director to evaluate portability eligibility before any substantive revocation decision is rendered.
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 Director's failure to determine whether the Beneficiary had properly ported was an error requiring remand. The matter must be sent back for the Director to evaluate portability eligibility before any substantive revocation decision is rendered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-22_01_B5203; source_row=22240 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The website was not shown to be a major medium; contributor credits and photo captions are not published material 'about' the petitioner; the article quoting the Petitioner was about other photographers launching a magazine and was not about the Petitioner; and the evidence lacked required title, date, or author information.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The website was not shown to be a major medium; contributor credits and photo captions are not published material 'about' the petitioner; the article quoting the Petitioner was about other photographers launching a magazine and was not about the Petitioner; and the evidence lacked required title, date, or author information.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B2203; source_row=22225 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Evaluating photoshoots informally as part of job duties does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others; the criterion requires a formal designation in a judging capacity; letters merely repeating the regulatory language without evidence of formal judging are insufficient.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Evaluating photoshoots informally as part of job duties does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others; the criterion requires a formal designation in a judging capacity; letters merely repeating the regulatory language without evidence of formal judging are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2018-01-19_02_B2203; source_row=22226 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c