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 18561–18570
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Scholarly authorship
authorship of scholarly articles
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Summer 2010 article was published after the filing date and the Petitioner offered no new evidence of pre-filing publication. The announcement of intent to publish does not satisfy the criterion, and the university institutional repository is not a professional or major trade publication or other major media.
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 found that the Summer 2010 article was published after the filing date and the Petitioner offered no new evidence of pre-filing publication. The announcement of intent to publish does not satisfy the criterion, and the university institutional repository is not a professional or major trade publication or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-25_01_B2203; source_row=19710 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record did not show how the additional representative role fits within the association's organizational hierarchy, and the Petitioner failed to detail duties performed or their impact. Longevity beyond a term limit does not demonstrate a leading or critical role, and the newsletter evidence was unsubstantiated and post-dated the filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record did not show how the additional representative role fits within the association's organizational hierarchy, and the Petitioner failed to detail duties performed or their impact. Longevity beyond a term limit does not demonstrate a leading or critical role, and the newsletter evidence was unsubstantiated and post-dated the filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-25_01_B2203; source_row=19711 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
What the decision said
AAO did not separately address the first prong, finding the petition failed on the third prong and therefore not reaching a conclusion on this criterion.
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 did not separately address the first prong, finding the petition failed on the third prong and therefore not reaching a conclusion on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-25_02_B5203; source_row=19713 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO acknowledged in its most recent prior decision that the Petitioner meets the judging criterion, including evidence that he judged a competition round in March 2010.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO acknowledged in its most recent prior decision that the Petitioner meets the judging criterion, including evidence that he judged a competition round in March 2010.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-25_01_B2203; source_row=19708 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
continuing ability to pay proffered wage from priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
For 2013 (the priority year), the Petitioner's net income of $20,372 and net current assets of $13,323 were both below the $49,700 proffered wage. The 2014 net current assets of $70,121 were sufficient, but the 2013 gap broke the required continuity. Bank statements are not among the three enumerated evidence types and do not show sustainable ability to pay.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
For 2013 (the priority year), the Petitioner's net income of $20,372 and net current assets of $13,323 were both below the $49,700 proffered wage. The 2014 net current assets of $70,121 were sufficient, but the 2013 gap broke the required continuity. Bank statements are not among the three enumerated evidence types and do not show sustainable ability to pay. The totality of circumstances—short operating history, no industry reputation evidence, total wages paid far below the proffered wage—did not support ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-25_01_B5203; source_row=19712 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that none of the submitted articles were 'about' the petitioner as required by the regulation—they were about research topics, technical innovations, or teams. Additionally, several articles lacked identified authors, and none demonstrated that the publication was a major trade publication or major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that none of the submitted articles were 'about' the petitioner as required by the regulation—they were about research topics, technical innovations, or teams. Additionally, several articles lacked identified authors, and none demonstrated that the publication was a major trade publication or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-24_01_B2203; source_row=19700 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO stated that because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirement of three criteria, a formal final merits determination was not required; however, in the alternative, the evidence in the aggregate also does not demonstrate the level of expertise required for extraordinary ability classification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO stated that because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirement of three criteria, a formal final merits determination was not required; however, in the alternative, the evidence in the aggregate also does not demonstrate the level of expertise required for extraordinary ability classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-24_01_B2203; source_row=19704 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that eligibility for the award was restricted to customers who utilize a specific company's software platform, and the Petitioner did not show the award rose to the level of a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the field.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that eligibility for the award was restricted to customers who utilize a specific company's software platform, and the Petitioner did not show the award rose to the level of a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the field. Qualifying as a finalist in the data challenge was not equivalent to receiving an award, and an invitation to apply for another award does not equate to receipt of that award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-09-24_01_B2203; source_row=19699 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c