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 18981–18990
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other22 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner did not show that the November 2011 article appeared in a major media publication (circulation evidence was inconclusive) and the October 2011 article was promotional material about a university program, not about the petitioner, and lacked an author attribution.
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 show that the November 2011 article appeared in a major media publication (circulation evidence was inconclusive) and the October 2011 article was promotional material about a university program, not about the petitioner, and lacked an author attribution.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_02_B2203; source_row=19256 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the petitioner demonstrated leading or critical roles at multiple institutions and publications, he failed to show that any of those institutions—including a regional university ranked 62nd in its category, a foreign campus, foreign universities, or his journal—had a distinguished reputation, relying too heavily on self-promotional evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the petitioner demonstrated leading or critical roles at multiple institutions and publications, he failed to show that any of those institutions—including a regional university ranked 62nd in its category, a foreign campus, foreign universities, or his journal—had a distinguished reputation, relying too heavily on self-promotional evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_02_B2203; source_row=19260 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner is an educator, not a performing arts professional, and the publishing/copyright agreements did not constitute comparable evidence of commercial success because they lacked compensation information and a benchmark for what constitutes commercial success 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 petitioner is an educator, not a performing arts professional, and the publishing/copyright agreements did not constitute comparable evidence of commercial success because they lacked compensation information and a benchmark for what constitutes commercial success in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_02_B2203; source_row=19261 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner failed to show the conference was in the same or an allied field of the classification sought (translational scientific research). Moreover, the evidence did not establish that the petitioner was actually serving as a judge of the work of others; rather, he engaged in dialogue with keynote speakers and fielded audience questions.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner failed to show the conference was in the same or an allied field of the classification sought (translational scientific research). Moreover, the evidence did not establish that the petitioner was actually serving as a judge of the work of others; rather, he engaged in dialogue with keynote speakers and fielded audience questions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_01_B2203; source_row=19248 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The regulation requires that published material relate to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner's book is a political science publication, not related to scientific research in his field, and the petitioner provided no evidence to the contrary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The regulation requires that published material relate to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner's book is a political science publication, not related to scientific research in his field, and the petitioner provided no evidence to the contrary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_01_B2203; source_row=19247 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
The petitioner's book is not related to scientific research in his field and therefore does not constitute a contribution of major significance to his field. Recommendation letters discuss potential benefits of his research but do not explain how he has already impacted the field. Citation evidence for one article showed a small number of citations insufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's book is not related to scientific research in his field and therefore does not constitute a contribution of major significance to his field. Recommendation letters discuss potential benefits of his research but do not explain how he has already impacted the field. Citation evidence for one article showed a small number of citations insufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_01_B2203; source_row=19249 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other22 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Copyright and publishing agreements showed only that publishers considered the work worthy of publication, not that the work had a major impact in the field. Reference letters were vague and conclusory, and citation evidence showed only a very small number of citations.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Copyright and publishing agreements showed only that publishers considered the work worthy of publication, not that the work had a major impact in the field. Reference letters were vague and conclusory, and citation evidence showed only a very small number of citations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_02_B2203; source_row=19258 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner did not assert criterion (i) on appeal, so the issue was abandoned. In any event, the evidence did not show the awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
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 assert criterion (i) on appeal, so the issue was abandoned. In any event, the evidence did not show the awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_02_B2203; source_row=19254 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other22 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner did not clear the step-1 threshold, though noted in dicta that the evidence in aggregate would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner did not clear the step-1 threshold, though noted in dicta that the evidence in aggregate would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-04-14_02_B2203; source_row=19262 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c