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 13121–13130
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other12 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner improperly attributed his horses' achievements to himself, failed to show how owning successful horses constitutes his own original contributions of major significance, and that a letter praising his horse sense did not demonstrate major significance in the field as a whole.
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 improperly attributed his horses' achievements to himself, failed to show how owning successful horses constitutes his own original contributions of major significance, and that a letter praising his horse sense did not demonstrate major significance in the field as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-30_01_B2203; source_row=25702 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherSenior Engineer
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's general statements about the importance of his fields did not establish national importance, because national importance focuses on the specific proposed endeavor rather than the field. The record lacked documentation from prospective employers about the specific engineering research he would undertake, and there was no evidence of significant potential to employ U.S.…
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 found that the Petitioner's general statements about the importance of his fields did not establish national importance, because national importance focuses on the specific proposed endeavor rather than the field. The record lacked documentation from prospective employers about the specific engineering research he would undertake, and there was no evidence of significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects attributable to his specific work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-30_01_B5203; source_row=25707 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other12 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the receipts showed what the Petitioner's business charged rather than what the Petitioner personally earned, and that comparing a horse business's income to a horse-owning household's median income was not a valid comparison to others in 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 the receipts showed what the Petitioner's business charged rather than what the Petitioner personally earned, and that comparing a horse business's income to a horse-owning household's median income was not a valid comparison to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-30_01_B2203; source_row=25705 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other12 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final Merits Determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold initial evidence requirement of at least three criteria.
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 final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold initial evidence requirement of at least three criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-30_01_B2203; source_row=25706 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences12 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that publication of articles and modest citation counts (19 and 12) were not shown to be commensurate with major significance in the field. A single citing article did not demonstrate field-wide impact, and the recommendation letters were largely conclusory, recounting publications and speculating about future impact rather than articulating present major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that publication of articles and modest citation counts (19 and 12) were not shown to be commensurate with major significance in the field. A single citing article did not demonstrate field-wide impact, and the recommendation letters were largely conclusory, recounting publications and speculating about future impact rather than articulating present major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-29_02_B2203; source_row=25667 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other500 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The bilingual website was only cited in a single book and one letter, insufficient to show major significance in the field. Work on the publication showed contributions to that outlet, not to the broader field. The advertising campaign showed the Petitioner's involvement but not that he created it or that it had a majorly significant impact on the journalism field overall.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The bilingual website was only cited in a single book and one letter, insufficient to show major significance in the field. Work on the publication showed contributions to that outlet, not to the broader field. The advertising campaign showed the Petitioner's involvement but not that he created it or that it had a majorly significant impact on the journalism field overall.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-29_07_B2203; source_row=25693 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other500 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding because the Petitioner compared his salary to workers in different occupations (reporters, journalists, editors) rather than to others in his same positions (social media coordinators and branding/editorial managers).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's finding because the Petitioner compared his salary to workers in different occupations (reporters, journalists, editors) rather than to others in his same positions (social media coordinators and branding/editorial managers).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-29_07_B2203; source_row=25696 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record showed the prize was awarded to the magazine/publication rather than to the Petitioner personally. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to establish that the prize is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 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 record showed the prize was awarded to the magazine/publication rather than to the Petitioner personally. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to establish that the prize is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-04-29_07_B2203; source_row=25690 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c