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 1401–1410
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed to provide comparable salary information for his specific occupation as a senior member technical staff information security engineer; he instead compared himself to a Level V Information Security Analyst, which is a different and lower job classification. Additionally, new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered because the Petitioner had prior opportunity to provide it.
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 provide comparable salary information for his specific occupation as a senior member technical staff information security engineer; he instead compared himself to a Level V Information Security Analyst, which is a different and lower job classification. Additionally, new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered because the Petitioner had prior opportunity to provide it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_04_B2203; source_row=43058 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while receipt of the award was established, the Petitioner did not show the award carried national or international recognition for excellence in the field. Background information about the contest was insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while receipt of the award was established, the Petitioner did not show the award carried national or international recognition for excellence in the field. Background information about the contest was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_05_B2203; source_row=43063 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that IEEE senior membership requirements (years of experience, professional occupation, references, 'significant performance') do not constitute outstanding achievements, and Petitioner conflated IEEE's three-reference requirement with judging by recognized national or international experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that IEEE senior membership requirements (years of experience, professional occupation, references, 'significant performance') do not constitute outstanding achievements, and Petitioner conflated IEEE's three-reference requirement with judging by recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_05_B2203; source_row=43064 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 the supporting letter contained only general, conclusory statements without explaining how the Petitioner's role was leading or critical or the effect of his work.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the supporting letter contained only general, conclusory statements without explaining how the Petitioner's role was leading or critical or the effect of his work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_05_B2203; source_row=43067 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance. Letters of recommendation addressed only the Petitioner's qualifications, not the national importance of the endeavor. Industry-wide articles did not connect the Petitioner's specific company to national-level prospective impact.…
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 endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance. Letters of recommendation addressed only the Petitioner's qualifications, not the national importance of the endeavor. Industry-wide articles did not connect the Petitioner's specific company to national-level prospective impact. The company's projected scale (600 stations, 21 employees) was not supported by probative evidence and was far too small relative to the 28 million stations DOE estimates are needed. No specific technology developed by the Petitioner was documented, and the STEM argument failed because the Petitioner did not explain how the endeavor would advance U.S. competitive leadership.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_04_B5203; source_row=43060 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found substantial merit was established because the endeavor falls within science and technology, but national importance was not shown. The general reach of the employer's platform cannot substitute for a showing of the Petitioner's own endeavor's broader implications; the Petitioner's assertions about economic and security impacts were conclusory; and merely working in an important field like AI/ML is insufficient to…
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 substantial merit was established because the endeavor falls within science and technology, but national importance was not shown. The general reach of the employer's platform cannot substitute for a showing of the Petitioner's own endeavor's broader implications; the Petitioner's assertions about economic and security impacts were conclusory; and merely working in an important field like AI/ML is insufficient to establish national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_01_B5203; source_row=43043 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record establishes substantial merit but not national importance, because Petitioner relies on benefits of the rope access industry generally rather than broader implications of his specific endeavor, and has not shown substantial economic effects or significant U.S. job creation directly attributable to his work.
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 the record establishes substantial merit but not national importance, because Petitioner relies on benefits of the rope access industry generally rather than broader implications of his specific endeavor, and has not shown substantial economic effects or significant U.S. job creation directly attributable to his work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_07_B5203; source_row=43076 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The articles from Semana and El Tiempo relate to the Petitioner's work but the record still lacks circulation statistics or intended-audience evidence to qualify them as major media. The CUNY TV submission lacks a transcript, subject identification, and evidence that CUNY TV is major media. The Petitioner also did not actually submit any article from El Pais despite claiming to.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The articles from Semana and El Tiempo relate to the Petitioner's work but the record still lacks circulation statistics or intended-audience evidence to qualify them as major media. The CUNY TV submission lacks a transcript, subject identification, and evidence that CUNY TV is major media. The Petitioner also did not actually submit any article from El Pais despite claiming to.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_01_B2203; source_row=43040 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Why AAO was not persuaded
The inconsistencies between the November 2023 and July 2024 letters describing ASOSALCALI's membership criteria cast doubt on the reliability of the letters. The record lacks independent objective evidence such as bylaws or a constitution to corroborate the claimed requirements, even though such documentation was specifically requested at the RFE stage and never provided.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The inconsistencies between the November 2023 and July 2024 letters describing ASOSALCALI's membership criteria cast doubt on the reliability of the letters. The record lacks independent objective evidence such as bylaws or a constitution to corroborate the claimed requirements, even though such documentation was specifically requested at the RFE stage and never provided.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_01_B2203; source_row=43039 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new recommendation letters praise the Petitioner in general terms but none specifically describe her training methods, choreography techniques, or otherwise detail unique contributions of major significance to the field. Inconsistencies in one letter (claiming Olympic medal status without corroboration) further undermined credibility.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The new recommendation letters praise the Petitioner in general terms but none specifically describe her training methods, choreography techniques, or otherwise detail unique contributions of major significance to the field. Inconsistencies in one letter (claiming Olympic medal status without corroboration) further undermined credibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-13_01_B2203; source_row=43041 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c