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 1–10
EB-1AEB-1A · MembershipNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Membership
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the COO letter alone was insufficient, that there was no independent corroborating evidence such as bylaws or membership criteria, and that the record did not demonstrate the selection committee members possess recognized national or international expertise.
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 COO letter alone was insufficient, that there was no independent corroborating evidence such as bylaws or membership criteria, and that the record did not demonstrate the selection committee members possess recognized national or international expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=45282 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the articles lack characteristics of scholarly articles (peer review, footnotes, bibliographies), were written as a Forbes Council member rather than as a researcher or expert, and that Forbes.com is not geared toward learned persons with profound knowledge in a particular field but toward a general business audience.
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 found the articles lack characteristics of scholarly articles (peer review, footnotes, bibliographies), were written as a Forbes Council member rather than as a researcher or expert, and that Forbes.com is not geared toward learned persons with profound knowledge in a particular field but toward a general business audience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=45286 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that venture capital funding is a business transaction rather than a prize or award, that the grant and Awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the Petitioner's field, and that the Petitioner was not individually recognized but rather his business and its products were.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that venture capital funding is a business transaction rather than a prize or award, that the grant and Awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the Petitioner's field, and that the Petitioner was not individually recognized but rather his business and its products were.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=45281 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that while the record shows original contributions, there was insufficient evidence of broad adoption or significant impact in the field. A pending patent does not establish substantial impact, and venture capital funding does not by itself establish major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that while the record shows original contributions, there was insufficient evidence of broad adoption or significant impact in the field. A pending patent does not establish substantial impact, and venture capital funding does not by itself establish major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=45285 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the submitted articles overwhelmingly focus on the Petitioner's business and products with only brief, incidental references to the Petitioner himself, and that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media.
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 submitted articles overwhelmingly focus on the Petitioner's business and products with only brief, incidental references to the Petitioner himself, and that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=45283 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
high salary or other significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that general chief executive wage data is too broad, does not account for industry specialization or geographic variation between NYC and broader New York, and that the equity valuation was not sufficiently corroborated.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that general chief executive wage data is too broad, does not account for industry specialization or geographic variation between NYC and broader New York, and that the equity valuation was not sufficiently corroborated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-31_01_B2203; source_row=45288 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other43 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the Petitioner has had career success, the evidence across all categories failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage 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 +
AAO found that while the Petitioner has had career success, the evidence across all categories failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Media coverage was limited, judging experience lacked distinction, patent contributions did not translate to personal acclaim, publication record was thin and outdated, salary comparison was flawed, and recommendation letters reflected a solicited few rather than the overall field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_02_B2203; source_row=45261 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the HGTV evidence showed the Petitioner's employer had contributed to HGTV projects but did not establish the Petitioner's specific contributions or that his manufacturing advancements were the reason for the contract.…
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the HGTV evidence showed the Petitioner's employer had contributed to HGTV projects but did not establish the Petitioner's specific contributions or that his manufacturing advancements were the reason for the contract. The claimed licensing relationship with the composite decking company was not supported by documentary evidence, and even if a relationship existed, the record did not link it to the Petitioner's work. The structural consultant's letter spoke to the quality of the Petitioner's work but did not address his proposed endeavor or record of success in improving manufacturing techniques. The continuing education evidence showed a different individual as course instructor, not the Petitioner. Employment alone was insufficient to demonstrate the level of interest from relevant entities needed under Dhanasar.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_04_B5203; source_row=45279 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, finding that industry reports did not address the specific endeavor, client letters spoke to prong 2, and the Petitioner did not show his modular systems are novel improvements over existing solutions.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, finding that industry reports did not address the specific endeavor, client letters spoke to prong 2, and the Petitioner did not show his modular systems are novel improvements over existing solutions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_02_B5203; source_row=45264 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the transcript in the record reflects less than four years of study, contradicting both academic evaluations' assertion of four years. The two evaluations also conflicted with each other on total credits earned (251.91 vs. 132.5). Per AACRAO EDGE, only a 4- or 5-year Brazilian Titulo de Bacharel is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.…
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 transcript in the record reflects less than four years of study, contradicting both academic evaluations' assertion of four years. The two evaluations also conflicted with each other on total credits earned (251.91 vs. 132.5). Per AACRAO EDGE, only a 4- or 5-year Brazilian Titulo de Bacharel is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the record does not establish the required foreign equivalent degree.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_03_B5203; source_row=45274 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c