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.
AAO counted the four years and eight months between the February 7, 2004 diploma date and employment with the Petitioner, plus approximately two years of pre-priority-date experience with the Petitioner in a position not substantially comparable to the offered position, to find the five-year requirement met.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO counted the four years and eight months between the February 7, 2004 diploma date and employment with the Petitioner, plus approximately two years of pre-priority-date experience with the Petitioner in a position not substantially comparable to the offered position, to find the five-year requirement met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-13_01_B5203; source_row=21895 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding. The Petitioner's most-cited article had only 15 citations (including self-cites), expert letters were largely conclusory and did not show field-wide impact, and utilization of his work by colleagues and employers does not equate to contributions of major significance. Publications alone cannot satisfy this criterion absent evidence of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's finding. The Petitioner's most-cited article had only 15 citations (including self-cites), expert letters were largely conclusory and did not show field-wide impact, and utilization of his work by colleagues and employers does not equate to contributions of major significance. Publications alone cannot satisfy this criterion absent evidence of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-12_01_B2203; source_row=21890 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's organizational chart did not show his position within the overall hierarchy, the letters did not differentiate him from other scientists, and the documentation did not establish that the organization had 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 found that the Petitioner's organizational chart did not show his position within the overall hierarchy, the letters did not differentiate him from other scientists, and the documentation did not establish that the organization had a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-12_01_B2203; source_row=21892 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's judging, publication record, citations, and role as a research associate collectively did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the remote sensing 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 Petitioner's judging, publication record, citations, and role as a research associate collectively did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the remote sensing field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-12_01_B2203; source_row=21893 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner's work had substantial merit as it imparts educational benefits and life skills to her students, but concluded that she failed to demonstrate national importance because the evidence did not show her activities would impact the field of special education beyond her school or district.…
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner's work had substantial merit as it imparts educational benefits and life skills to her students, but concluded that she failed to demonstrate national importance because the evidence did not show her activities would impact the field of special education beyond her school or district. The collective value of teachers to national educational initiatives is not the same as the specific national importance of this Petitioner's individual endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-05_01_B5203; source_row=21878 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters praise his professionalism in general terms without showing how he performed a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. The record does not verify his specific responsibilities, the hierarchy of the coaching staff, or his impact on the team's success.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters praise his professionalism in general terms without showing how he performed a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. The record does not verify his specific responsibilities, the hierarchy of the coaching staff, or his impact on the team's success.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-05_01_B2203; source_row=21875 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has the required level of expertise, though a full final merits analysis was unnecessary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has the required level of expertise, though a full final merits analysis was unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-05_01_B2203; source_row=21876 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the Petitioner documented several awards, he did not establish their national or international recognition or significance, did not correlate newspaper reports with certificates, and did not corroborate the significance of the website that posted his results.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the Petitioner documented several awards, he did not establish their national or international recognition or significance, did not correlate newspaper reports with certificates, and did not corroborate the significance of the website that posted his results.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-10-05_01_B2203; source_row=21873 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c