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 19411–19420
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Scholarly authorship
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that although the petitioner has written scholarly articles, he has not demonstrated that his website or other online platforms where his articles appear qualify as major trade publications, and the petitioner abandoned the argument that other online sources qualify on appeal.
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 although the petitioner has written scholarly articles, he has not demonstrated that his website or other online platforms where his articles appear qualify as major trade publications, and the petitioner abandoned the argument that other online sources qualify on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_02_B2203; source_row=18777 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the petitioner's unsupported assertions about limited major publications were not evidence, and even assuming scarcity of major publications, the petitioner had not shown the criteria do not 'readily apply' — only that they might be challenging to meet. The submitted materials simply did not rise to the required level.
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 petitioner's unsupported assertions about limited major publications were not evidence, and even assuming scarcity of major publications, the petitioner had not shown the criteria do not 'readily apply' — only that they might be challenging to meet. The submitted materials simply did not rise to the required level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_02_B2203; source_row=18779 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the petitioner's continuing education program constitutes a single original contribution of major significance, the criterion requires contributions in the plural and the petitioner's other activities (a symposium and an awareness campaign) did not rise to the level of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the petitioner's continuing education program constitutes a single original contribution of major significance, the criterion requires contributions in the plural and the petitioner's other activities (a symposium and an awareness campaign) did not rise to the level of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_02_B2203; source_row=18776 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the petitioner failed to show the publications were 'major' trade publications or major media, that some materials lacked required author/date information, that some materials postdated the filing, and that some materials were not 'about' the petitioner.
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 petitioner failed to show the publications were 'major' trade publications or major media, that some materials lacked required author/date information, that some materials postdated the filing, and that some materials were not 'about' the petitioner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_02_B2203; source_row=18775 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the petitioner did not show that being a CEP constitutes a distinct membership class, and even if it did, the qualifications required (education and years of experience) do not constitute outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
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 petitioner did not show that being a CEP constitutes a distinct membership class, and even if it did, the qualifications required (education and years of experience) do not constitute outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_02_B2203; source_row=18774 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The association was established for building relations between Nepali Christians and other religions for national development, not for filmmaking or film directing. Additionally, the organization's ordinary membership required only age and interest, and though special membership required 'extraordinary capacity,' there was no showing that those who judged the petitioner were recognized national or international experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The association was established for building relations between Nepali Christians and other religions for national development, not for filmmaking or film directing. Additionally, the organization's ordinary membership required only age and interest, and though special membership required 'extraordinary capacity,' there was no showing that those who judged the petitioner were recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_03_B2203; source_row=18785 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The 2012 award was for work in advancing human rights, not for excellence in filmmaking or film directing. The award was also not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized. The festival semi-finalist selection was not an award or prize, and no independent evidence established the festival's 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 2012 award was for work in advancing human rights, not for excellence in filmmaking or film directing. The award was also not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized. The festival semi-finalist selection was not an award or prize, and no independent evidence established the festival's awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_03_B2203; source_row=18784 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner failed to show that the publications were professional or major trade publications or other major media; evidence of their status came only from the publications themselves, which has minimal evidentiary value. One article was about the petitioner's film rather than about the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to provide the date or author of the materials.…
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 publications were professional or major trade publications or other major media; evidence of their status came only from the publications themselves, which has minimal evidentiary value. One article was about the petitioner's film rather than about the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to provide the date or author of the materials. The opera publication lacked information on the publisher and did not constitute published material about the petitioner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_03_B2203; source_row=18786 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The evidence showed only that the petitioner directed films, not that his work impacted the field of filmmaking and film directing as a whole. Simply performing one's occupational duties without demonstrating wider field-level influence is insufficient. Reference letters were vague and solicited, containing bare assertions of acclaim without specific examples of contributions rising to major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The evidence showed only that the petitioner directed films, not that his work impacted the field of filmmaking and film directing as a whole. Simply performing one's occupational duties without demonstrating wider field-level influence is insufficient. Reference letters were vague and solicited, containing bare assertions of acclaim without specific examples of contributions rising to major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_03_B2203; source_row=18787 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences3,400 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found citation rates, expert letters, journal rankings, peer review service, conference presentations, a patent application, and online media coverage did not establish that the petitioner's work has had major significance in the field. Expert letters spoke to potential rather than realized impact, and citing articles did not show heavy reliance on her findings.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found citation rates, expert letters, journal rankings, peer review service, conference presentations, a patent application, and online media coverage did not establish that the petitioner's work has had major significance in the field. Expert letters spoke to potential rather than realized impact, and citing articles did not show heavy reliance on her findings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-11-28_01_B2203; source_row=18768 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c