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.
The AAO found that the petitioner's work as an editor, prize nominator, and merit reviewer established participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the petitioner's work as an editor, prize nominator, and merit reviewer established participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=19217 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO found the petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance through highly-cited articles in top journals, independent published coverage of his work, and detailed letters from researchers worldwide explaining how they use his findings in their own work.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance through highly-cited articles in top journals, independent published coverage of his work, and detailed letters from researchers worldwide explaining how they use his findings in their own work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=19218 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the petitioner established authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications based on multiple published articles in distinguished scientific journals.
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 +
The AAO found the petitioner established authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications based on multiple published articles in distinguished scientific journals.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=19219 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
The AAO found that the petitioner's elective membership, editorial roles on exclusive boards, highly-cited articles in top-ranked journals, and expert testimonials collectively established sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner has risen to the very top of his 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 the petitioner's elective membership, editorial roles on exclusive boards, highly-cited articles in top-ranked journals, and expert testimonials collectively established sustained national or international acclaim and that the petitioner has risen to the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=19220 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
For each of the three journals, the petitioner either failed to demonstrate the journal had a distinguished reputation, failed to show he performed a critical role (e.g., being one of more than 39 editors), or both. General assertions that journal editor positions are inherently critical were insufficient; the petitioner needed specific evidence of his actual duties and impact for each organization.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
For each of the three journals, the petitioner either failed to demonstrate the journal had a distinguished reputation, failed to show he performed a critical role (e.g., being one of more than 39 editors), or both. General assertions that journal editor positions are inherently critical were insufficient; the petitioner needed specific evidence of his actual duties and impact for each organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-23_01_B2203; source_row=19206 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 expert letters discussed the novelty of the petitioner's work and its potential future impact, but did not establish that his contributions had already significantly impacted the field at the time of filing. The citation record did not demonstrate unusual reliance on the petitioner's work, and the petitioner failed to provide context for citations to show major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The expert letters discussed the novelty of the petitioner's work and its potential future impact, but did not establish that his contributions had already significantly impacted the field at the time of filing. The citation record did not demonstrate unusual reliance on the petitioner's work, and the petitioner failed to provide context for citations to show major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-23_01_B2203; source_row=19203 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases (comparable evidence)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that scientific conference presentations are not comparable to artistic exhibitions or showcases because they serve the same purpose as scholarly articles and are published in conference proceedings; the petitioner was already credited for conference proceedings under the scholarly articles criterion. Evidence meeting one criterion cannot be presumed to be comparable evidence for a different 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 scientific conference presentations are not comparable to artistic exhibitions or showcases because they serve the same purpose as scholarly articles and are published in conference proceedings; the petitioner was already credited for conference proceedings under the scholarly articles criterion. Evidence meeting one criterion cannot be presumed to be comparable evidence for a different criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-23_01_B2203; source_row=19205 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO conducted an advisory aggregate review and concluded the petitioner had not demonstrated the level of expertise required, though the formal step-2 determination was not strictly required given the failure at step 1.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted an advisory aggregate review and concluded the petitioner had not demonstrated the level of expertise required, though the formal step-2 determination was not strictly required given the failure at step 1.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-23_01_B2203; source_row=19208 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Petitioner did not show the publication constituted 'other major media,' did not show the articles were scholarly (no citations, peer review, or editorial review), and did not establish publication of several articles.
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 +
Petitioner did not show the publication constituted 'other major media,' did not show the articles were scholarly (no citations, peer review, or editorial review), and did not establish publication of several articles.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-23_02_B2203; source_row=19212 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Petitioner did not explain how the criteria do not readily apply to her occupation or identify what evidence is comparable, so she could not rely on the comparable evidence provision.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner did not explain how the criteria do not readily apply to her occupation or identify what evidence is comparable, so she could not rely on the comparable evidence provision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2015-03-23_02_B2203; source_row=19214 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c