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 861–870
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Scholarly authorship
scholarly articles
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the article is not scholarly, as it is very general in tone, offers advice in layperson's terms to anyone who desires to buy international property, and does not presume that the reader has any prior experience in international real estate investment.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the article is not scholarly, as it is very general in tone, offers advice in layperson's terms to anyone who desires to buy international property, and does not presume that the reader has any prior experience in international real estate investment.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_06_B2203; source_row=43990 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's over a dozen convention awards lacked evidence of broader impact or high-level recognition; his publications had minimal sales (104 copies) with no corroborated industry impact; his judging activities at six competitions lacked specific selection criteria showing elite status; and media coverage merely listed him among other artists without discussing his individual contributions.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's over a dozen convention awards lacked evidence of broader impact or high-level recognition; his publications had minimal sales (104 copies) with no corroborated industry impact; his judging activities at six competitions lacked specific selection criteria showing elite status; and media coverage merely listed him among other artists without discussing his individual contributions. Taken in totality, the evidence did not reflect a career of acclaimed work at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_04_B2203; source_row=43971 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable determination because the record lacked evidence that the publication was one of the required types or even that the journal existed; the Petitioner presented only a work title without identifying the publication name.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable determination because the record lacked evidence that the publication was one of the required types or even that the journal existed; the Petitioner presented only a work title without identifying the publication name.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_05_B2203; source_row=43984 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to others
What the decision said
AAO reserved consideration of this criterion because the Petitioner could only meet one of the ten criteria regardless, making the high salary criterion unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved consideration of this criterion because the Petitioner could only meet one of the ten criteria regardless, making the high salary criterion unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_01_B2203; source_row=43948 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO formally declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the step-one threshold of at least three qualifying criteria. AAO did note in dicta that the aggregate record does 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 +
AAO formally declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the step-one threshold of at least three qualifying criteria. AAO did note in dicta that the aggregate record does not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_03_B2203; source_row=43967 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the Director's affirmative finding. The Petitioner's role was reviewing presentations from undergraduate students who are not 'in the field,' and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate his evaluation was equivalent to serving on a PhD dissertation committee. Additionally, supporting materials could not be located in the 600-page record due to poor organization.
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 affirmative finding. The Petitioner's role was reviewing presentations from undergraduate students who are not 'in the field,' and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate his evaluation was equivalent to serving on a PhD dissertation committee. Additionally, supporting materials could not be located in the 600-page record due to poor organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_03_B2203; source_row=43965 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions
What the decision said
AAO expressly reserved this criterion as unnecessary because the Petitioner had already failed to meet the three-criteria threshold under the other criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO expressly reserved this criterion as unnecessary because the Petitioner had already failed to meet the three-criteria threshold under the other criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_04_B5203; source_row=43977 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c