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 13441–13450
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other200 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO accepted the Director's finding that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance, noting expert letters and citations support this conclusion.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO accepted the Director's finding that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance, noting expert letters and citations support this conclusion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_02_B2203; source_row=25340 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Occupation falls within sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Director's SOC-code-focused analysis insufficient and disagreed with the blanket exclusion of professionals from EB-1A. AAO concluded the record evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's occupation falls within 'business' under section 203(b)(1)(A)(i).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director's SOC-code-focused analysis insufficient and disagreed with the blanket exclusion of professionals from EB-1A. AAO concluded the record evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's occupation falls within 'business' under section 203(b)(1)(A)(i).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-04_01_B2203; source_row=25331 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud under section 204(c)
Why AAO was not persuaded
Applying Matter of P. Singh's heightened standard, AAO finds the derogatory evidence does not rise above a preponderance and thus does not constitute substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Applying Matter of P. Singh's heightened standard, AAO finds the derogatory evidence does not rise above a preponderance and thus does not constitute substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-04_01_B5203; source_row=25332 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that screenshots of video clips, images, and permalinks do not constitute published material about the Petitioner relating to her work, as she provided no transcripts or content details.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that screenshots of video clips, images, and permalinks do not constitute published material about the Petitioner relating to her work, as she provided no transcripts or content details. Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the specific YouTube channel has major medium status, not YouTube overall — and the channel had at most 10 subscribers and 2,678 video views, which was not shown to reflect major medium status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-03_01_B2203; source_row=25325 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's finding because the Petitioner failed to submit evidence of her actual placements or awards at national U.S. competitions, failed to demonstrate the national or international recognition or significance of her competition awards, and did not show that her unsupported finishes at NDCA events or fourth/fifth place finishes at the cited competition rise to the level of 'excellence' required by the c…
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 failed to submit evidence of her actual placements or awards at national U.S. competitions, failed to demonstrate the national or international recognition or significance of her competition awards, and did not show that her unsupported finishes at NDCA events or fourth/fifth place finishes at the cited competition rise to the level of 'excellence' required by the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-03_01_B2203; source_row=25324 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that while the Petitioner conducted, published, and presented research during training, he did not show that his work served as an impetus for progress in cardiovascular medicine, affected diagnostic or treatment protocols, or generated substantial positive discourse.…
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 while the Petitioner conducted, published, and presented research during training, he did not show that his work served as an impetus for progress in cardiovascular medicine, affected diagnostic or treatment protocols, or generated substantial positive discourse. His citation counts were minimal, his peer review experience was not shown to be significant, and no evidence showed that his findings had been implemented or utilized by others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-03_01_B5203; source_row=25329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical11 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the record, including information from the American Heart Association and CDC on cardiovascular disease prevalence and the broader dissemination of research results through journals and conferences, supports a finding of substantial merit and national importance for the proposed 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 that the record, including information from the American Heart Association and CDC on cardiovascular disease prevalence and the broader dissemination of research results through journals and conferences, supports a finding of substantial merit and national importance for the proposed research. However, AAO noted that the Petitioner's clinical work does not satisfy the national importance element because it does not impact the field broadly.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-03_01_B5203; source_row=25328 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record lacked sufficient documentary evidence of the nature or size of the Petitioner's organization, and the evidence about consulting projects did not detail the nature or extent of his contributions. Conflicting articles further undermined his claims, and the evidence was insufficient to establish the organization had a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record lacked sufficient documentary evidence of the nature or size of the Petitioner's organization, and the evidence about consulting projects did not detail the nature or extent of his contributions. Conflicting articles further undermined his claims, and the evidence was insufficient to establish the organization had a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-02_02_B2203; source_row=25321 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c