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 12851–12860
EB-1AEB-1A · JudgingNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Judging
judging the work of others
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding, concluding that the evidence only showed invitations and committee listings but not that the Petitioner actually participated in judging or reviewing the work of others. Actual participation—not just invitation—is required.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding, concluding that the evidence only showed invitations and committee listings but not that the Petitioner actually participated in judging or reviewing the work of others. Actual participation—not just invitation—is required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_01_B2203; source_row=26003 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that letters did not distinguish the Petitioner's role as leading or critical compared to others at the institution, the ACM-CWC letter was conclusory without detail, and the Petitioner failed to establish the distinguished reputation of ACM-CWC's scholarships committee.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that letters did not distinguish the Petitioner's role as leading or critical compared to others at the institution, the ACM-CWC letter was conclusory without detail, and the Petitioner failed to establish the distinguished reputation of ACM-CWC's scholarships committee.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_01_B2203; source_row=26006 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the reference letters did not demonstrate the Petitioner's research had been implemented, applauded, or generated industry interest; citation counts (6, 5, 5, 2) were unsupported by comparative field statistics; conference presentations and peer review activities did not establish a record of success or significant influence.
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 the reference letters did not demonstrate the Petitioner's research had been implemented, applauded, or generated industry interest; citation counts (6, 5, 5, 2) were unsupported by comparative field statistics; conference presentations and peer review activities did not establish a record of success or significant influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_04_B5203; source_row=26030 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences18 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's patents, research, and clinical work showed promise and potential but lacked evidence of already-realized major significance. Letters from experts used prospective, speculative language rather than demonstrating existing impact. Citation counts were low and not shown to be commensurate with major significance. Articles reported on new technologies without discussing their field-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, research, and clinical work showed promise and potential but lacked evidence of already-realized major significance. Letters from experts used prospective, speculative language rather than demonstrating existing impact. Citation counts were low and not shown to be commensurate with major significance. Articles reported on new technologies without discussing their field-wide impact. The nonprofit and speaking engagements constituted publications and presentations insufficient without evidence of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_02_B2203; source_row=26020 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the venture capital was received by the Petitioner's company, not by the Petitioner personally, failing the regulatory requirement that the alien receive the award. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish the national or international significance of the venture capital investment as a prize or award for excellence in the field, nor did he show the criteria used in awarding the funding.…
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 venture capital was received by the Petitioner's company, not by the Petitioner personally, failing the regulatory requirement that the alien receive the award. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish the national or international significance of the venture capital investment as a prize or award for excellence in the field, nor did he show the criteria used in awarding the funding. The comparable evidence argument also failed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards criterion is inapplicable to his occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_02_B2203; source_row=26018 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found multiple deficiencies: the findbiometrics.com article lacked a named author (a mandatory regulatory requirement); the findbiometrics.com, biometricupdate.com, and techworld.com articles were about the technology or company, not about the Petitioner; the websites were not established as professional or major trade publications through objective evidence; and the two digitaljournal.com articles were filed after the…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found multiple deficiencies: the findbiometrics.com article lacked a named author (a mandatory regulatory requirement); the findbiometrics.com, biometricupdate.com, and techworld.com articles were about the technology or company, not about the Petitioner; the websites were not established as professional or major trade publications through objective evidence; and the two digitaljournal.com articles were filed after the initial petition date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_02_B2203; source_row=26019 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIEngineerPhD4 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed aerospace engineering research, including through a government strategic plan and evidence of broad dissemination.
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 documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed aerospace engineering research, including through a government strategic plan and evidence of broad dissemination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-21_06_B5203; source_row=26035 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c