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 23161–23170
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 letters of recommendation failed to provide concrete examples of contributions of major significance; they contained bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims without specific examples of how contributions rose to major significance. The letters were from colleagues and acquaintances rather than independent experts.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The letters of recommendation failed to provide concrete examples of contributions of major significance; they contained bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims without specific examples of how contributions rose to major significance. The letters were from colleagues and acquaintances rather than independent experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_05_B2203; source_row=14423 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner's evidence in aggregate — a single peer review, co-authorship of twenty articles with supervisors, well-received but not individually groundbreaking research, student awards, and the general praise of highly credentialed references who far surpassed the petitioner in accomplishments — did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the 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 evidence in aggregate — a single peer review, co-authorship of twenty articles with supervisors, well-received but not individually groundbreaking research, student awards, and the general praise of highly credentialed references who far surpassed the petitioner in accomplishments — did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_03_B2203; source_row=14418 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material about the alien in professional or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because: the school website article only briefly mentioned the petitioner as a team member and was not about her; the Faculty of 1000 comments were peer-review evaluations of her article, not material about her; citation articles were about the citing authors' own work; the NewsRx article lacked an identified author and no evidence showed it was major media; and none of the submission…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO withdrew the director's finding because: the school website article only briefly mentioned the petitioner as a team member and was not about her; the Faculty of 1000 comments were peer-review evaluations of her article, not material about her; citation articles were about the citing authors' own work; the NewsRx article lacked an identified author and no evidence showed it was major media; and none of the submissions was shown to be in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_03_B2203; source_row=14412 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
No documentary evidence was submitted to prove receipt of the awards, and there was no evidence that the awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations so as to constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
No documentary evidence was submitted to prove receipt of the awards, and there was no evidence that the awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations so as to constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_03_B2203; source_row=14410 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner offered no basis for comparison showing that her salary of $45,960 was significantly high relative to other research scientists 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 offered no basis for comparison showing that her salary of $45,960 was significantly high relative to other research scientists in her field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_03_B2203; source_row=14417 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
No documentary evidence (such as membership bylaws) was submitted showing ASM or ASTMH require outstanding achievements; the Sigma Xi evidence showed only an expression of interest without actual membership, and Sigma Xi's standard of two first-authored papers does not constitute outstanding achievement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
No documentary evidence (such as membership bylaws) was submitted showing ASM or ASTMH require outstanding achievements; the Sigma Xi evidence showed only an expression of interest without actual membership, and Sigma Xi's standard of two first-authored papers does not constitute outstanding achievement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_03_B2203; source_row=14411 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 for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
No organizational chart or evidence showing the petitioner's positions within the hierarchy was submitted; her roles as graduate student and postdoctoral associate were temporary training positions that did not differentiate her from other researchers or demonstrate a leading or critical role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
No organizational chart or evidence showing the petitioner's positions within the hierarchy was submitted; her roles as graduate student and postdoctoral associate were temporary training positions that did not differentiate her from other researchers or demonstrate a leading or critical role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_03_B2203; source_row=14416 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
High salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the FLC wage data covered 2010–2011 while salary evidence was from 2008, creating a temporal mismatch. Additionally, the FLC data was limited to the Las Vegas area, making it impossible to assess salary nationally. Finally, evidence of above-average wages does not demonstrate a 'high' salary as required.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the FLC wage data covered 2010–2011 while salary evidence was from 2008, creating a temporal mismatch. Additionally, the FLC data was limited to the Las Vegas area, making it impossible to assess salary nationally. Finally, evidence of above-average wages does not demonstrate a 'high' salary as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_06_B2203; source_row=14436 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
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
AAO agreed that Nevada Magazine, Front of House, National Post, Las Vegas Sun, and Las Vegas Review Journal are not major media or professional trade publications, and found no evidence that Hollywood Reporter qualifies either. Further, none of the material focuses on the petitioner's work specifically—the articles are about productions, with only incidental mentions of the petitioner.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that Nevada Magazine, Front of House, National Post, Las Vegas Sun, and Las Vegas Review Journal are not major media or professional trade publications, and found no evidence that Hollywood Reporter qualifies either. Further, none of the material focuses on the petitioner's work specifically—the articles are about productions, with only incidental mentions of the petitioner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_06_B2203; source_row=14432 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that being employed in a competitive position does not constitute receipt of an award; no evidence of selection criteria, number of applicants, or recognition as a prize was submitted; a major internationally recognized award must be global in scope and recognized as a top award in the field, comparable to a Nobel Prize.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that being employed in a competitive position does not constitute receipt of an award; no evidence of selection criteria, number of applicants, or recognition as a prize was submitted; a major internationally recognized award must be global in scope and recognized as a top award in the field, comparable to a Nobel Prize.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-14_06_B2203; source_row=14431 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c