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 11571–11580
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted articles were about a seminar in which the Petitioner participated as a panelist, not about the Petitioner herself. Additionally, none of the articles was accompanied by supporting evidence demonstrating publication in professional or major trade publications or major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted articles were about a seminar in which the Petitioner participated as a panelist, not about the Petitioner herself. Additionally, none of the articles was accompanied by supporting evidence demonstrating publication in professional or major trade publications or major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-21_01_B2203; source_row=27614 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in her field because the comparison data showed only average salaries, not salaries of those at the top of the field. The data was national in scope and did not allow comparison to others in the same occupation and geographic area in Taiwan. Even comparing to average professor salaries, the Petitioner's wages did not appear to be at the higher end.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in her field because the comparison data showed only average salaries, not salaries of those at the top of the field. The data was national in scope and did not allow comparison to others in the same occupation and geographic area in Taiwan. Even comparing to average professor salaries, the Petitioner's wages did not appear to be at the higher end.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-21_01_B2203; source_row=27618 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The reference letters were largely conclusory, contained identical language across some letters suggesting lack of independent authorship, and did not explain how the Petitioner's work was widely implemented or influenced the field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The reference letters were largely conclusory, contained identical language across some letters suggesting lack of independent authorship, and did not explain how the Petitioner's work was widely implemented or influenced the field. Citation statistics alone were insufficient without context showing major significance, journal impact factors reflect the publication's overall rate not the individual author's impact, and citing articles did not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work as authoritative.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-21_01_B2203; source_row=27616 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalResearcher
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's citation counts were insufficient to show a record of success or substantial interest from relevant parties; his peer review work was not documented as sufficiently prestigious; his employer letter showed he would be spread across disparate projects with unclear time devoted to the proposed research; and his prior research projects were not shown to connect to or position him to advance his p…
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 Petitioner's citation counts were insufficient to show a record of success or substantial interest from relevant parties; his peer review work was not documented as sufficiently prestigious; his employer letter showed he would be spread across disparate projects with unclear time devoted to the proposed research; and his prior research projects were not shown to connect to or position him to advance his proposed cancer research.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-20_02_B5203; source_row=27610 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalResearcher
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the proposed research endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, noting the record included information about the benefits of the research, growing demand for complementary and alternative medicine, and letters of support about the research's potential to advance the field.
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 the Director that the proposed research endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, noting the record included information about the benefits of the research, growing demand for complementary and alternative medicine, and letters of support about the research's potential to advance the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-20_02_B5203; source_row=27609 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to waive job offer and labor certification
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach prong three because the Petitioner failed to establish prong two, making further discussion of the balancing factors serve no meaningful purpose.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach prong three because the Petitioner failed to establish prong two, making further discussion of the balancing factors serve no meaningful purpose.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-20_01_B5203; source_row=27608 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that while the Petitioner is a capable and respected researcher, the record did not establish that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.…
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that while the Petitioner is a capable and respected researcher, the record did not establish that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Her citations did not distinguish her work, her peer-review service lacked evidence of selection criteria, her letters of recommendation did not show concrete impact on diagnostic or treatment protocols, and she did not demonstrate that she (rather than her supervisor) was primarily responsible for securing research funding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-20_01_B5203; source_row=27607 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c