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 21391–21400
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the petitioner failed to differentiate himself from other researchers and physicians at the relevant institutions, and his roles as a resident physician and research collaborator did not rise to the level of leading or critical roles for the distinguished organizations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the petitioner failed to differentiate himself from other researchers and physicians at the relevant institutions, and his roles as a resident physician and research collaborator did not rise to the level of leading or critical roles for the distinguished organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-07_01_B2203; source_row=16551 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO agreed that evidence of the petitioner's completed peer review of two manuscripts satisfied the plain language of the regulation, while rejecting claims based on teaching, supervision, committee service, and mere invitations to review.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO agreed that evidence of the petitioner's completed peer review of two manuscripts satisfied the plain language of the regulation, while rejecting claims based on teaching, supervision, committee service, and mere invitations to review.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-07_01_B2203; source_row=16548 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
The AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, though noted in passing that the evidence would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, though noted in passing that the evidence would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-07_01_B2203; source_row=16552 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Moderate citation counts (22 and 9), conference presentations, and recommendation letters praising future potential rather than established major impact were insufficient. The letters discussed work in progress or yet-to-be-published findings, and none demonstrated that the petitioner's contributions had already reached a level 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 +
Moderate citation counts (22 and 9), conference presentations, and recommendation letters praising future potential rather than established major impact were insufficient. The letters discussed work in progress or yet-to-be-published findings, and none demonstrated that the petitioner's contributions had already reached a level of major significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-06_01_B2203; source_row=16538 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
Letters stating the petitioner 'lead' projects or was a 'key member' merely repeated regulatory language without comparing her role to other postdoctoral fellows, without establishing the distinguished reputation of the organizations, and without showing she performed the role at more than one organization. Post-filing evidence of a new position in 2012 could not be considered for a petition filed December 2011.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Letters stating the petitioner 'lead' projects or was a 'key member' merely repeated regulatory language without comparing her role to other postdoctoral fellows, without establishing the distinguished reputation of the organizations, and without showing she performed the role at more than one organization. Post-filing evidence of a new position in 2012 could not be considered for a petition filed December 2011.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-06_01_B2203; source_row=16540 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce is comparable to only three years of U.S. university study per AACRAO EDGE, and the postgraduate diploma is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree because it was not issued by an AICTE-approved institution. The statute and regulations clearly require at least a full baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce is comparable to only three years of U.S. university study per AACRAO EDGE, and the postgraduate diploma is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree because it was not issued by an AICTE-approved institution. The statute and regulations clearly require at least a full baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-06_02_B5203; source_row=16545 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
beneficiary qualifications per labor certification
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Indian degrees equivalent to a U.S. master's in engineering and found the beneficiary had more than two years of qualifying experience as a programmer analyst before the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Indian degrees equivalent to a U.S. master's in engineering and found the beneficiary had more than two years of qualifying experience as a programmer analyst before the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-06-06_01_B5203; source_row=16542 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c