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 10541–10550
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
Substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO reserved this prong because the Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility, making further NIW analysis unnecessary.
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 reserved this prong because the Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility, making further NIW analysis unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-17_01_B5203; source_row=28942 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters and emails showed recognition for internal work accomplishments and benefitted individual employers and clients, but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the engineering or project management industry or field as a whole. Claims about innovative techniques and technologies were unsubstantiated.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters and emails showed recognition for internal work accomplishments and benefitted individual employers and clients, but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the engineering or project management industry or field as a whole. Claims about innovative techniques and technologies were unsubstantiated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-17_01_B5203; source_row=28941 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWlicense or certificationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
license or certification
License to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not explain what the Brazilian Regional Council of Engineering and Agronomy is, what the registration confers, or what qualifies him to register. It was also not apparent that Brazil requires a license to practice engineering or engineering project management.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not explain what the Brazilian Regional Council of Engineering and Agronomy is, what the registration confers, or what qualifies him to register. It was also not apparent that Brazil requires a license to practice engineering or engineering project management.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-17_01_B5203; source_row=28938 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Official academic record showing degree related to area of exceptional ability
Why the evidence was persuasive
Although the translations were questionable for the advanced degree analysis, the record adequately showed the Petitioner earned a degree from a college or university relating to the area of exceptional ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although the translations were questionable for the advanced degree analysis, the record adequately showed the Petitioner earned a degree from a college or university relating to the area of exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-17_01_B5203; source_row=28936 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's current hospital qualifies as an organization with a distinguished reputation. While the Beneficiary performed admirably, the evidence did not show his role was leading or critical consistent with the regulatory criterion, and the hospital's patient survey ratings and annual reports did not establish a distinguished reputation 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 Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's current hospital qualifies as an organization with a distinguished reputation. While the Beneficiary performed admirably, the evidence did not show his role was leading or critical consistent with the regulatory criterion, and the hospital's patient survey ratings and annual reports did not establish a distinguished reputation in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=28932 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other13 papers11 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Expert letters lacked specificity about how the Beneficiary's research findings had already been widely accepted and implemented in the field. Citation statistics (229 cumulative citations, with top articles receiving 79, 61, and 48 citations) were insufficient to establish major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Expert letters lacked specificity about how the Beneficiary's research findings had already been widely accepted and implemented in the field. Citation statistics (229 cumulative citations, with top articles receiving 79, 61, and 48 citations) were insufficient to establish major significance. Evidence of potential future impact, NIH funding contributions, and journal impact factors did not establish major significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=28931 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Both the Director and AAO agreed that the Petitioner fulfilled the scholarly articles criterion based on articles published in journals including Clinical Infectious Diseases, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and Journal of Virology.
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 +
Both the Director and AAO agreed that the Petitioner fulfilled the scholarly articles criterion based on articles published in journals including Clinical Infectious Diseases, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and Journal of Virology.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=28930 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other13 papers11 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the step-1 criteria threshold was not met, but noted in advisory fashion that the record does not support 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 explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the step-1 criteria threshold was not met, but noted in advisory fashion that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=28934 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other13 papers11 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
What the decision said
AAO declined to consider the high salary criterion because the Petitioner raised it for the first time on appeal, having not claimed it before the Director at filing or in response to the RFE.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to consider the high salary criterion because the Petitioner raised it for the first time on appeal, having not claimed it before the Director at filing or in response to the RFE.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=28933 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Both the Director and AAO agreed that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging criterion based on the Beneficiary's peer review activities for multiple journals.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Both the Director and AAO agreed that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging criterion based on the Beneficiary's peer review activities for multiple journals.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=28929 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c