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 16951–16960
EB-1AEB-1A · MembershipNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringManager32 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Membership
membership
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's membership evidence did not establish that the associations require outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's membership evidence did not establish that the associations require outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_01_B2203; source_row=21396 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringManager32 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to show that his various committee memberships and positions were leading roles, failed to demonstrate that the relevant organizations had distinguished reputations, and did not sufficiently distinguish his editorial board role from the 31 other board members.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to show that his various committee memberships and positions were leading roles, failed to demonstrate that the relevant organizations had distinguished reputations, and did not sufficiently distinguish his editorial board role from the 31 other board members.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_01_B2203; source_row=21400 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not establish that his certificates are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of water emergency management, mitigation, and safety.
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 establish that his certificates are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of water emergency management, mitigation, and safety.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_01_B2203; source_row=21395 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringManager32 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The recommendation letters made general claims without specific details showing major significance; 32 citations were insufficient to show contributions of major significance; and conference presentations lacked evidence of widespread citation or significant impact on the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters made general claims without specific details showing major significance; 32 citations were insufficient to show contributions of major significance; and conference presentations lacked evidence of widespread citation or significant impact on the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_01_B2203; source_row=21398 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Although the Petitioner is listed on the editorial board, he did not demonstrate that he actually reviewed or edited any manuscripts or otherwise performed the functions of an editorial board member consistent with the judging criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Although the Petitioner is listed on the editorial board, he did not demonstrate that he actually reviewed or edited any manuscripts or otherwise performed the functions of an editorial board member consistent with the judging criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_01_B2203; source_row=21397 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO conducted an abbreviated aggregate review and found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted an abbreviated aggregate review and found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_02_B2203; source_row=21407 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that citation counts were relatively modest, citing articles did not single out the Petitioner's work as particularly important, recommendation letters did not provide specific examples of field-wide impact, and clinical trial participation did not establish that the contributions were his own. The record did not show the Petitioner's research substantially influenced the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that citation counts were relatively modest, citing articles did not single out the Petitioner's work as particularly important, recommendation letters did not provide specific examples of field-wide impact, and clinical trial participation did not establish that the contributions were his own. The record did not show the Petitioner's research substantially influenced the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_02_B2203; source_row=21405 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the experience evidence independently deficient regardless of the degree date issue: three employer letters lacked specific descriptions of duties as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), and there were unresolved inconsistencies between two letters purporting to verify employment at what appeared to be different companies for the same period.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the experience evidence independently deficient regardless of the degree date issue: three employer letters lacked specific descriptions of duties as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), and there were unresolved inconsistencies between two letters purporting to verify employment at what appeared to be different companies for the same period.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_01_B5203; source_row=21403 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The reference letters describe successful client work but do not show contributions to the SEO field beyond benefits to individual firms; remaining letters address character and community standing rather than industry recognition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The reference letters describe successful client work but do not show contributions to the SEO field beyond benefits to individual firms; remaining letters address character and community standing rather than industry recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-05-23_02_B5203; source_row=21413 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c