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.
The Director found and AAO accepted that the Petitioner met the judging criterion based on peer review of manuscripts and service as a judge at a conference.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The Director found and AAO accepted that the Petitioner met the judging criterion based on peer review of manuscripts and service as a judge at a conference.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-03_02_B2203; source_row=30128 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's media coverage was limited to 2018 and focused on industry topics rather than her accomplishments; her peer review and judging activities lacked evidence of selectivity or prestige; her publications had modest citations without comparative data; her salary was below field benchmarks; her roles did not evidence top-of-field distinction; and her recommendation letters came from a solicited few…
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 media coverage was limited to 2018 and focused on industry topics rather than her accomplishments; her peer review and judging activities lacked evidence of selectivity or prestige; her publications had modest citations without comparative data; her salary was below field benchmarks; her roles did not evidence top-of-field distinction; and her recommendation letters came from a solicited few rather than reflecting broad field recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-03_02_B2203; source_row=30130 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to provide circulation data or other evidence showing that her articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as required. AAO noted the Director appeared to rely on incomplete information regarding the existence of some articles but agreed with the core conclusion that the publications were not shown to be qualifying.
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 +
The Petitioner failed to provide circulation data or other evidence showing that her articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as required. AAO noted the Director appeared to rely on incomplete information regarding the existence of some articles but agreed with the core conclusion that the publications were not shown to be qualifying.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-30_01_B2203; source_row=30117 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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
AAO found that the Petitioner's patents and articles evidenced original contributions but not their major significance. Letters from close associates lacked objective corroboration, and evidence of enterprise standards being adopted by two companies was insufficient to show industry-wide impact.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's patents and articles evidenced original contributions but not their major significance. Letters from close associates lacked objective corroboration, and evidence of enterprise standards being adopted by two companies was insufficient to show industry-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-30_01_B2203; source_row=30116 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c