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 19921–19930
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
display of the alien's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
What the decision said
The petitioner did not contest the director's findings for this criterion on appeal or offer additional arguments, so the issue was deemed abandoned.
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 contest the director's findings for this criterion on appeal or offer additional arguments, so the issue was deemed abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=18204 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated 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 the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the newly submitted circulation evidence on appeal sufficient to demonstrate published material about the petitioner in major media, and withdrew the director's findings on this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the newly submitted circulation evidence on appeal sufficient to demonstrate published material about the petitioner in major media, and withdrew the director's findings on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=18202 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to reach the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the antecedent requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
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 reach the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to satisfy the antecedent requirement of qualifying evidence under at least three criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=18206 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying this criterion. AAO affirmed the director's finding.
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 petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying this criterion. AAO affirmed the director's finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-23_03_B2203; source_row=18220 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's aggregate of ten citations across all work, no article cited more than seven times, expert letters attesting to clinical skill but not field-wide impact, and peer review service (already captured under criterion iv) together fail to demonstrate contributions of major significance. Publications and presentations alone are insufficient without evidence of actual major impact.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's aggregate of ten citations across all work, no article cited more than seven times, expert letters attesting to clinical skill but not field-wide impact, and peer review service (already captured under criterion iv) together fail to demonstrate contributions of major significance. Publications and presentations alone are insufficient without evidence of actual major impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=18196 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying criterion (vi). The director's finding is affirmed.
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 petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying criterion (vi). The director's finding is affirmed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=18197 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner submitted evidence of peer-reviewing manuscripts for professional journals, satisfying this criterion. The director's finding is affirmed.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner submitted evidence of peer-reviewing manuscripts for professional journals, satisfying this criterion. The director's finding is affirmed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-18_01_B2203; source_row=18195 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Expert letters were inconsistent on originality of the petitioner's percussion work and focused on future rather than existing impact. Neither the traditional percussion contribution nor the instructional book/CD/DVD demonstrated that the petitioner had already made a contribution of major significance in his field as of the priority date.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Expert letters were inconsistent on originality of the petitioner's percussion work and focused on future rather than existing impact. Neither the traditional percussion contribution nor the instructional book/CD/DVD demonstrated that the petitioner had already made a contribution of major significance in his field as of the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-07-16_02_B2203; source_row=18190 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c