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 17041–17050
EB-1AEB-1A · Artistic displayNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Artistic display
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument because he is a computer engineering researcher who presented at scientific conferences, which are not artistic venues, and his presentations were not of an artistic nature. The criterion requires display at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument because he is a computer engineering researcher who presented at scientific conferences, which are not artistic venues, and his presentations were not of an artistic nature. The criterion requires display at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_01_B2203; source_row=21303 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, noting the Director failed to explain how the Petitioner was instrumental or what specific role he played. The proposals showed the Petitioner in a subordinate role below other key team members, and there was no demonstration that his involvement constituted a critical role for the institution 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 withdrew the Director's finding, noting the Director failed to explain how the Petitioner was instrumental or what specific role he played. The proposals showed the Petitioner in a subordinate role below other key team members, and there was no demonstration that his involvement constituted a critical role for the institution as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_01_B2203; source_row=21304 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that the recommendation letter was primarily conclusory and did not demonstrate actual major significance. Citation data was minimal (one paper with six citations), and the grant proposals had not yet been implemented or approved, meaning any future significance was speculative.
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, concluding that the recommendation letter was primarily conclusory and did not demonstrate actual major significance. Citation data was minimal (one paper with six citations), and the grant proposals had not yet been implemented or approved, meaning any future significance was speculative.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_01_B2203; source_row=21301 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 maintains its prior conclusion that the totality of the record does not show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field; the motion evidence does not change that result.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO maintains its prior conclusion that the totality of the record does not show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field; the motion evidence does not change that result.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_04_B2203; source_row=21322 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner established ability to pay only for 2013 via wages paid, but not for 2014 or 2015 via wages paid, net income, or net current assets. The Sonegawa factors raised on appeal were unsupported or inapposite, and the petitioner's calculation of net current assets on appeal was erroneous.
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 established ability to pay only for 2013 via wages paid, but not for 2014 or 2015 via wages paid, net income, or net current assets. The Sonegawa factors raised on appeal were unsupported or inapposite, and the petitioner's calculation of net current assets on appeal was erroneous.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_02_B5203; source_row=21313 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the Petitioner's live television interview on a channel averaging millions of viewers qualifies as major media, satisfying this criterion.
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 live television interview on a channel averaging millions of viewers qualifies as major media, satisfying this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_02_B2203; source_row=21309 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the totality of the evidence — including introduction of new bloodlines, champion horses bred, media coverage, and evaluation work on several continents — establishes sustained national and international acclaim at the top of 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 that the totality of the evidence — including introduction of new bloodlines, champion horses bred, media coverage, and evaluation work on several continents — establishes sustained national and international acclaim at the top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2017-04-26_02_B2203; source_row=21312 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c