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 18861–18870
EB-1AEB-1A · AwardsNot established
Case facts
Social SciencesManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Awards
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record did not show the scholarship was awarded in recognition of excellence in the field, that its selection criteria required excellence, or that it was nationally or internationally recognized. The scholarship was limited to younger doctoral and post-doctoral scholars, not established professionals. Unsupported assertions were insufficient. The alternative grant claim also lacked documentary support.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record did not show the scholarship was awarded in recognition of excellence in the field, that its selection criteria required excellence, or that it was nationally or internationally recognized. The scholarship was limited to younger doctoral and post-doctoral scholars, not established professionals. Unsupported assertions were insufficient. The alternative grant claim also lacked documentary support.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_02_B2203; source_row=19381 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social SciencesManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record lacked sufficient evidence that the petitioner's work had major impact. Only one citation was documented in the record. Download statistics were unreliable and not probative of field impact. Foreign language documents lacked certified translations. Unpublished manuscripts could not establish impact. Publication alone is not sufficient without showing major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The record lacked sufficient evidence that the petitioner's work had major impact. Only one citation was documented in the record. Download statistics were unreliable and not probative of field impact. Foreign language documents lacked certified translations. Unpublished manuscripts could not establish impact. Publication alone is not sufficient without showing major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_02_B2203; source_row=19383 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held that even considering the new salary evidence, it would not satisfy the criterion: one offer letter postdated the filing, and the petitioner provided no comparison to earnings of others in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that even considering the new salary evidence, it would not satisfy the criterion: one offer letter postdated the filing, and the petitioner provided no comparison to earnings of others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_01_B2203; source_row=19379 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner failed to show that the websites in question constitute professional or major trade publications or major media; materials lacked certified translations; and the materials were not 'about' the petitioner relating to his work but rather described events listing him as a participant.
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 the websites in question constitute professional or major trade publications or major media; materials lacked certified translations; and the materials were not 'about' the petitioner relating to his work but rather described events listing him as a participant.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_03_B2203; source_row=19387 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner failed to show he performs a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. Reference letters were conclusory, evidence of training participation does not demonstrate a leading or critical organizational role, and the reputation evidence was self-promotional. Two reference letters also raised credibility concerns due to identical language.
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 he performs a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. Reference letters were conclusory, evidence of training participation does not demonstrate a leading or critical organizational role, and the reputation evidence was self-promotional. Two reference letters also raised credibility concerns due to identical language.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_03_B2203; source_row=19388 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner failed to show his 2012 wins were nationally or internationally recognized, failed to provide certified translations for relevant documents, did not show the wins resulted in a prize or award, and could not rely on post-filing events.
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 his 2012 wins were nationally or internationally recognized, failed to provide certified translations for relevant documents, did not show the wins resulted in a prize or award, and could not rely on post-filing events.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_03_B2203; source_row=19386 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Though the petitioner never claimed this criterion, AAO addressed it because the record included a list referencing his role as chief editor of a book. However, no supporting documentary evidence was submitted for this assertion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Though the petitioner never claimed this criterion, AAO addressed it because the record included a list referencing his role as chief editor of a book. However, no supporting documentary evidence was submitted for this assertion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_02_B2203; source_row=19382 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social SciencesManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed the step-1 threshold, but noted in dicta that the aggregate evidence did not support a finding of top-level expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed the step-1 threshold, but noted in dicta that the aggregate evidence did not support a finding of top-level expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_02_B2203; source_row=19385 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the record showed the petitioner authored scholarly articles including a 2011 article and a 2012 article published in professional publications.
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 agreed that the record showed the petitioner authored scholarly articles including a 2011 article and a 2012 article published in professional publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_02_B2203; source_row=19384 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found, based on the full record including appeal evidence, that the beneficiary's credentials (bachelor's degree or equivalent plus at least five years of progressive experience) matched the labor certification requirements as of the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found, based on the full record including appeal evidence, that the beneficiary's credentials (bachelor's degree or equivalent plus at least five years of progressive experience) matched the labor certification requirements as of the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-05-26_01_B5203; source_row=19380 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c