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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the alternative that the record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the alternative that the record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_11_B2203; source_row=26370 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidentiary requirement of three criteria, but noted in advisory language that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidentiary requirement of three criteria, but noted in advisory language that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_09_B2203; source_row=26365 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not show he held a leading position or that his contributions were of critical importance to his employer's activities. The supporting letter used conclusory language and described projects that were never fully implemented, and did not link the Petitioner's work to the organization's overall outcomes.
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 show he held a leading position or that his contributions were of critical importance to his employer's activities. The supporting letter used conclusory language and described projects that were never fully implemented, and did not link the Petitioner's work to the organization's overall outcomes.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_09_B2203; source_row=26363 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences8 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's evidence, including dissemination of results through medical journals, demonstrated substantial merit and national importance of her proposed biomedical research.
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 Petitioner's evidence, including dissemination of results through medical journals, demonstrated substantial merit and national importance of her proposed biomedical research.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_03_B5203; source_row=26336 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
What the decision said
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence on this criterion on appeal, on motion she did not raise it as a contested issue and AAO confirmed claims not raised with specificity on appeal are waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence on this criterion on appeal, on motion she did not raise it as a contested issue and AAO confirmed claims not raised with specificity on appeal are waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_07_B2203; source_row=26357 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c