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 17691–17700
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Beneficiary's judging was routine peer review not indicative of national/international recognition; his contributions to speech recognition had only moderate citation counts and independent letters did not detail reliance on his work; his work at subsequent employers benefited them but did not influence the wider field; his salary was below the top 10th percentile.…
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 Beneficiary's judging was routine peer review not indicative of national/international recognition; his contributions to speech recognition had only moderate citation counts and independent letters did not detail reliance on his work; his work at subsequent employers benefited them but did not influence the wider field; his salary was below the top 10th percentile. In aggregate, the record establishes a promising data scientist but not one among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=20625 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not explain which criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. Her new television appearance documentation did not confirm it occurred before the filing date, and additional evidence on the already-met published material criterion does not constitute comparable evidence. Solicited letters are generally not comparable to the objective evidence the criteria require.
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 explain which criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. Her new television appearance documentation did not confirm it occurred before the filing date, and additional evidence on the already-met published material criterion does not constitute comparable evidence. Solicited letters are generally not comparable to the objective evidence the criteria require.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_02_B2203; source_row=20629 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The new letter did not confirm that the Petitioner was serving as site administrator prior to the filing date in January 2014, and even if she were, the letter did not sufficiently explain how her role as site administrator constituted judging the work of others in her field. Routine grading of assignments by teachers does not constitute participating as a judge under the regulation.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The new letter did not confirm that the Petitioner was serving as site administrator prior to the filing date in January 2014, and even if she were, the letter did not sufficiently explain how her role as site administrator constituted judging the work of others in her field. Routine grading of assignments by teachers does not constitute participating as a judge under the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_02_B2203; source_row=20627 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organization with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new letter did not confirm that the Petitioner was the site administrator prior to the filing date of January 2014; instead it discussed her 2016 conference scheduling role and future plans. The organization's distinguished reputation was also not corroborated by independent evidence, and conclusory statements were insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new letter did not confirm that the Petitioner was the site administrator prior to the filing date of January 2014; instead it discussed her 2016 conference scheduling role and future plans. The organization's distinguished reputation was also not corroborated by independent evidence, and conclusory statements were insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_02_B2203; source_row=20628 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major media
Why the evidence was persuasive
Both the Director and AAO agreed that the record contains published material about the Petitioner in major media. This criterion was not at issue in the motion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Both the Director and AAO agreed that the record contains published material about the Petitioner in major media. This criterion was not at issue in the motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_02_B2203; source_row=20626 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO declined to separately adjudicate the leading/critical role criterion at step 1, instead folding this evidence into the final merits determination since three criteria were already found met.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to separately adjudicate the leading/critical role criterion at step 1, instead folding this evidence into the final merits determination since three criteria were already found met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=20623 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO confirmed the Beneficiary reviewed articles for peer-reviewed journals, satisfying the criterion at step 1, while deferring qualitative assessment of the significance of this judging experience to final merits.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO confirmed the Beneficiary reviewed articles for peer-reviewed journals, satisfying the criterion at step 1, while deferring qualitative assessment of the significance of this judging experience to final merits.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=20620 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO confirmed the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles relating to modelling techniques for recognition of impaired speech, satisfying the criterion at step 1.
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 confirmed the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles relating to modelling techniques for recognition of impaired speech, satisfying the criterion at step 1.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=20622 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO conducted an alternate aggregate review and concluded the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of sports management.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted an alternate aggregate review and concluded the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of sports management.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-26_02_B2203; source_row=20613 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c