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 21161–21170
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
Citations merely mention the petitioner within a qualifying publication and do not constitute published material about the petitioner. Book reviews critique the book rather than discuss the petitioner herself.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Citations merely mention the petitioner within a qualifying publication and do not constitute published material about the petitioner. Book reviews critique the book rather than discuss the petitioner herself. The one publication where a qualifying review may have appeared was not supported by the actual review, only a table of contents, and in any event a single publication is insufficient under the plural-form regulatory language.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-24_01_B2203; source_row=16811 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The expert letters lack specificity about the actual impacts of the petitioner's contributions, speaking only in general terms about raising public awareness about Kashmir. Citation records show only a minimal level of citations rather than the widely-cited record claimed. The petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that her contributions are of major significance in the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The expert letters lack specificity about the actual impacts of the petitioner's contributions, speaking only in general terms about raising public awareness about Kashmir. Citation records show only a minimal level of citations rather than the widely-cited record claimed. The petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that her contributions are of major significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-24_01_B2203; source_row=16813 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While the petitioner was named as a presenter, chair, and panelist at conferences, she did not submit evidence describing the duties she performed in those roles. Without corroborating evidence explaining that her positions involved formally judging the work of others, she has not met this criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
While the petitioner was named as a presenter, chair, and panelist at conferences, she did not submit evidence describing the duties she performed in those roles. Without corroborating evidence explaining that her positions involved formally judging the work of others, she has not met this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-24_01_B2203; source_row=16812 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
Counsel failed to explain how the AAO erred under Kazarian regarding the original contributions criterion. The recommendation letters referred to the petitioner's personal traits, talents, and skills without identifying how they constituted contributions of major significance in the field as a whole.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Counsel failed to explain how the AAO erred under Kazarian regarding the original contributions criterion. The recommendation letters referred to the petitioner's personal traits, talents, and skills without identifying how they constituted contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. New recommendation letters submitted on motion were not considered because counsel failed to explain why they were not previously available.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=16807 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
Counsel failed to present any new legal argument or identify error in the AAO's prior findings regarding the published material criterion. The newly submitted letters were insufficient as secondary evidence, did not qualify as affidavits, and the articles at issue were not about the petitioner's work in the field but merely mentioned her among other performers.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Counsel failed to present any new legal argument or identify error in the AAO's prior findings regarding the published material criterion. The newly submitted letters were insufficient as secondary evidence, did not qualify as affidavits, and the articles at issue were not about the petitioner's work in the field but merely mentioned her among other performers. Additionally, the publications were not established to be major media or professional trade publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=16805 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO affirmed its prior finding that the artistic display criterion is limited to the visual arts and does not apply to performing artists such as dancers. The petitioner performs her work rather than displaying it, and the criterion would be rendered meaningless if applied to performing artists since it would collapse into the leading or critical role criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO affirmed its prior finding that the artistic display criterion is limited to the visual arts and does not apply to performing artists such as dancers. The petitioner performs her work rather than displaying it, and the criterion would be rendered meaningless if applied to performing artists since it would collapse into the leading or critical role criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-07-23_01_B2203; source_row=16808 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c