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.
Because the listed worksite was a virtual office at the priority date, there was no place to which U.S. workers could be referred; the petitioner's intent to acquire physical space in the future cannot establish present eligibility.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the listed worksite was a virtual office at the priority date, there was no place to which U.S. workers could be referred; the petitioner's intent to acquire physical space in the future cannot establish present eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-09_01_B5203; source_row=18557 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 recommendation letters focused on the petitioner's skills and potential future impact rather than already-recognized major contributions. Citation evidence showed only one moderately cited article and other minimally cited articles, insufficient to demonstrate major significance. Eligibility must be established as of the filing date, so potential future impact cannot suffice.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters focused on the petitioner's skills and potential future impact rather than already-recognized major contributions. Citation evidence showed only one moderately cited article and other minimally cited articles, insufficient to demonstrate major significance. Eligibility must be established as of the filing date, so potential future impact cannot suffice.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_01_B2203; source_row=18548 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Neither article satisfies the criterion. The first was published in what appears to be a newsletter, not a professional or major trade publication. The second was a conference paper; the conference is an event, not a publication, and there is no evidence it was published in conference proceedings.
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 +
Neither article satisfies the criterion. The first was published in what appears to be a newsletter, not a professional or major trade publication. The second was a conference paper; the conference is an event, not a publication, and there is no evidence it was published in conference proceedings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_02_B2203; source_row=18553 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
The wage comparison data submitted was not specific to geophysics; statistics for geoscientists broadly or physicists are not shown to be equivalent to geophysics earnings. The industry survey was incomplete and compared total compensation to base salary figures. Being at the 75th percentile among 'Geophysical – Advanced Seniors' was insufficient to establish a high salary relative to 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 +
The wage comparison data submitted was not specific to geophysics; statistics for geoscientists broadly or physicists are not shown to be equivalent to geophysics earnings. The industry survey was incomplete and compared total compensation to base salary figures. Being at the 75th percentile among 'Geophysical – Advanced Seniors' was insufficient to establish a high salary relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_02_B2203; source_row=18555 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 reference letters show the beneficiary's work has value and benefits his employers, but do not establish contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. Evidence of adding to the general pool of knowledge, future speculative impact, and financial benefit to employers is insufficient; the criterion requires demonstrated impact beyond one's employer and clients.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The reference letters show the beneficiary's work has value and benefits his employers, but do not establish contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. Evidence of adding to the general pool of knowledge, future speculative impact, and financial benefit to employers is insufficient; the criterion requires demonstrated impact beyond one's employer and clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_02_B2203; source_row=18552 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The association's active membership requires only that one be actively engaged in practicing or teaching geophysics; it does not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. Moreover, the criterion requires membership in associations in the plural, and petitioner only showed membership in one association.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The association's active membership requires only that one be actively engaged in practicing or teaching geophysics; it does not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. Moreover, the criterion requires membership in associations in the plural, and petitioner only showed membership in one association.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_02_B2203; source_row=18550 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The beneficiary's curriculum vitae does not corroborate the judging activity described in the letter, creating an inconsistency the petitioner failed to resolve with independent objective evidence.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary's curriculum vitae does not corroborate the judging activity described in the letter, creating an inconsistency the petitioner failed to resolve with independent objective evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_02_B2203; source_row=18551 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the ultimate outcome but disagreed with the director's reasoning regarding one of the employers. Neither the external company nor the petitioner itself was shown to have a distinguished reputation; self-promotional website evidence has minimal evidentiary value, and other submitted evidence was insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the ultimate outcome but disagreed with the director's reasoning regarding one of the employers. Neither the external company nor the petitioner itself was shown to have a distinguished reputation; self-promotional website evidence has minimal evidentiary value, and other submitted evidence was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-10-06_02_B2203; source_row=18554 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c