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 21101–21110
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO found the petitioner abandoned this criterion by not pursuing it after RFE and not addressing it on appeal.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner abandoned this criterion by not pursuing it after RFE and not addressing it on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-06_01_B2203; source_row=16879 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
Evidence established job titles but failed to describe duties performed, how roles fit within organizational hierarchy, or petitioner's impact on the organizations as a whole. Translation deficiencies further undermined evidence. Some organizations lacked evidence of distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Evidence established job titles but failed to describe duties performed, how roles fit within organizational hierarchy, or petitioner's impact on the organizations as a whole. Translation deficiencies further undermined evidence. Some organizations lacked evidence of distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16865 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Translation deficiencies undermined the probative value of evidence. Even setting aside translations, petitioner demonstrated only one contribution (hyperrealism innovation), while the regulation requires contributions in the plural. The singular/plural distinction in the regulation is meaningful.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Translation deficiencies undermined the probative value of evidence. Even setting aside translations, petitioner demonstrated only one contribution (hyperrealism innovation), while the regulation requires contributions in the plural. The singular/plural distinction in the regulation is meaningful.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16862 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
Only two of the four publications argued on appeal qualified as major media. Articles in those qualifying publications either lacked author names (failing plain language requirements) or had deficient translations. Other publications lacked sufficient circulation data to qualify as major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Only two of the four publications argued on appeal qualified as major media. Articles in those qualifying publications either lacked author names (failing plain language requirements) or had deficient translations. Other publications lacked sufficient circulation data to qualify as major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16860 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Petitioner failed to provide primary evidence establishing the books are scholarly in nature. Translation deficiencies undermined evidence for one book. Conference moderation and curricula implementation were not shown to constitute published scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
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 failed to provide primary evidence establishing the books are scholarly in nature. Translation deficiencies undermined evidence for one book. Conference moderation and curricula implementation were not shown to constitute published scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16863 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
Reviewing all evidence in aggregate, the petitioner's acclaim was concentrated in the 1970s-1990s with little recent evidence. One innovative contribution (hyperrealism) occurred over three decades before the petition. Memberships, published materials, and judging evidence did not demonstrate sustained top-level acclaim. The petitioner did not show he remained among the small percentage at 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 +
Reviewing all evidence in aggregate, the petitioner's acclaim was concentrated in the 1970s-1990s with little recent evidence. One innovative contribution (hyperrealism) occurred over three decades before the petition. Memberships, published materials, and judging evidence did not demonstrate sustained top-level acclaim. The petitioner did not show he remained among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16868 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other11 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
The comparison salary data related to television directors and producers/directors, not screenwriters, making it an improper basis for comparison to the petitioner's per-script compensation as a screenwriter.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The comparison salary data related to television directors and producers/directors, not screenwriters, making it an improper basis for comparison to the petitioner's per-script compensation as a screenwriter.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16866 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
Petitioner failed to provide membership requirements from bylaws or official documents showing associations require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. General reputation of an association does not establish that it requires outstanding achievements of members.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner failed to provide membership requirements from bylaws or official documents showing associations require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. General reputation of an association does not establish that it requires outstanding achievements of members.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-08-02_01_B2203; source_row=16859 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c