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 22731–22740
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 petitioner did not identify any significant impact and did not contest the director's findings on appeal; the issue was deemed abandoned.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner did not identify any significant impact and did not contest the director's findings on appeal; the issue was deemed abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-19_01_B2203; source_row=14962 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
No documentary evidence specifically identified the petitioner—rather than the film's director or other recipients—as receiving any of the three awards. Additionally, the LAFF and MIFF audience awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition beyond the festivals themselves.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
No documentary evidence specifically identified the petitioner—rather than the film's director or other recipients—as receiving any of the three awards. Additionally, the LAFF and MIFF audience awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition beyond the festivals themselves.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_04_B2203; source_row=14941 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
AAO withdrew the director's finding. Most articles were not 'about' the petitioner, many lacked required publication details (date, author), and no circulation evidence was submitted to establish qualifying publications as major trade publications or major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the director's finding. Most articles were not 'about' the petitioner, many lacked required publication details (date, author), and no circulation evidence was submitted to establish qualifying publications as major trade publications or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_04_B2203; source_row=14942 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other100 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that publications and citations alone do not demonstrate major significance, as a separate criterion already covers scholarly articles. Journal impact factors do not equate to article impact. Citation counts exceeding the average are insufficient without evidence of what citation level is consistent with major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that publications and citations alone do not demonstrate major significance, as a separate criterion already covers scholarly articles. Journal impact factors do not equate to article impact. Citation counts exceeding the average are insufficient without evidence of what citation level is consistent with major significance. Reference letters were vague, lacked specificity, and did not adequately corroborate the claimed significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_02_B2203; source_row=14929 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other100 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO disagreed with the director's finding that this criterion was met. None of the submitted documents constituted published material about the petitioner (as opposed to about her co-authored articles), and most lacked required information such as title, date, and author. The NewsRx.com articles appeared to be press releases rather than independent journalism.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the director's finding that this criterion was met. None of the submitted documents constituted published material about the petitioner (as opposed to about her co-authored articles), and most lacked required information such as title, date, and author. The NewsRx.com articles appeared to be press releases rather than independent journalism.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_02_B2203; source_row=14928 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other100 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The totality of the evidence — limited publications, 100 total citations without comparative benchmark, minimal media coverage, two conferences in 2007, and vague reference letters — does not show the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of molecular and cellular neurobiology or that she has 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 totality of the evidence — limited publications, 100 total citations without comparative benchmark, minimal media coverage, two conferences in 2007, and vague reference letters — does not show the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of molecular and cellular neurobiology or that she has sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_02_B2203; source_row=14931 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
The petitioner demonstrated only one documented citation at the time of filing, and many claimed citations post-dated the petition filing. Recommendation letters were vague and speculative about future impact rather than demonstrating present major significance. Conference presentations do not equate to original contributions of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner demonstrated only one documented citation at the time of filing, and many claimed citations post-dated the petition filing. Recommendation letters were vague and speculative about future impact rather than demonstrating present major significance. Conference presentations do not equate to original contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_01_B2203; source_row=14920 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the director's grant of this criterion because the petitioner's post-filing conference moderation activity could not establish eligibility at the time of filing, and the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence supporting her claims of assessing papers or judging work of others. Merely presenting work at conferences or moderating panels does not satisfy the judging criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the director's grant of this criterion because the petitioner's post-filing conference moderation activity could not establish eligibility at the time of filing, and the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence supporting her claims of assessing papers or judging work of others. Merely presenting work at conferences or moderating panels does not satisfy the judging criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_01_B2203; source_row=14919 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner's salary evidence post-dates the filing and cannot be considered. Moreover, the petitioner's salary of $64,213.72 compared unfavorably to senior CPA salaries of $175,450, demonstrating she has not commanded a high salary in relation to others in her field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's salary evidence post-dates the filing and cannot be considered. Moreover, the petitioner's salary of $64,213.72 compared unfavorably to senior CPA salaries of $175,450, demonstrating she has not commanded a high salary in relation to others in her field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_03_B2203; source_row=14938 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
All of the petitioner's claimed membership evidence post-dates the September 2006 filing date and cannot be considered. Additionally, merely applying for membership does not demonstrate actual membership, and passing a standardized CPA exam does not constitute outstanding achievement judged by recognized national or international experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
All of the petitioner's claimed membership evidence post-dates the September 2006 filing date and cannot be considered. Additionally, merely applying for membership does not demonstrate actual membership, and passing a standardized CPA exam does not constitute outstanding achievement judged by recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-07-17_03_B2203; source_row=14936 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c