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 24131–24140
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other15 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducts a final merits determination and finds that the totality of the evidence does not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducts a final merits determination and finds that the totality of the evidence does not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-03_04_B2203; source_row=13338 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Counsel relied on testimonial letters and self-serving letters from the petitioner-employer, which AAO found insufficient to distinguish the beneficiary's role. The plain language of the regulation requires a leading or critical role with more than one organization, and only one was claimed.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Counsel relied on testimonial letters and self-serving letters from the petitioner-employer, which AAO found insufficient to distinguish the beneficiary's role. The plain language of the regulation requires a leading or critical role with more than one organization, and only one was claimed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-03_04_B2203; source_row=13337 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that experts clearly described how petitioner's training methodologies were original and of major significance, and that they are being widely applied throughout the field, satisfying this criterion.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that experts clearly described how petitioner's training methodologies were original and of major significance, and that they are being widely applied throughout the field, satisfying this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-03_02_B2203; source_row=13324 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The awards were limited to company employees, were granted to over 100 recipients in engineering alone in 2007, and lacked evidence of national/international recognition in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The awards were limited to company employees, were granted to over 100 recipients in engineering alone in 2007, and lacked evidence of national/international recognition in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-02_01_B2203; source_row=13308 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Materials ScienceEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded the petitioner's contributions were largely confined to his employer, did not show widespread industry implementation as of the filing date, and reflected occupational performance rather than major-significance contributions; duplicative wording across two reference letters reduced their probative value.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO concluded the petitioner's contributions were largely confined to his employer, did not show widespread industry implementation as of the filing date, and reflected occupational performance rather than major-significance contributions; duplicative wording across two reference letters reduced their probative value.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-11-02_01_B2203; source_row=13310 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c