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 1451–1460
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not provide independent objective evidence the articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or major media, and foreign-language articles lacked certified English translations as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
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 provide independent objective evidence the articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or major media, and foreign-language articles lacked certified English translations as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_01_B2203; source_row=42980 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's possible future contributions are not yet realized. The evidence showed potential promise but did not establish that her work already qualified as a contribution of major significance in the field as of the priority date.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's possible future contributions are not yet realized. The evidence showed potential promise but did not establish that her work already qualified as a contribution of major significance in the field as of the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43003 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's unsupported assertions on appeal did not identify any corroborating evidence that the certificates of achievement were nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 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 Petitioner's unsupported assertions on appeal did not identify any corroborating evidence that the certificates of achievement were nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43000 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO held that judging the performance of undergraduate students does not constitute judging 'the work of others in the same or an allied field' because undergraduates are not yet professionals in the field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that judging the performance of undergraduate students does not constitute judging 'the work of others in the same or an allied field' because undergraduates are not yet professionals in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43002 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found the evidence pertained to the dental industry broadly rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The claimed economic benefits (21 jobs, HUBZone impact, tax benefits) were not corroborated by independent and objective evidence sufficient to show national importance. The endeavor's impact is limited to the Petitioner's company and prospective clients.
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 the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found the evidence pertained to the dental industry broadly rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The claimed economic benefits (21 jobs, HUBZone impact, tax benefits) were not corroborated by independent and objective evidence sufficient to show national importance. The endeavor's impact is limited to the Petitioner's company and prospective clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B5203; source_row=43008 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed prong 2: he lacked a model or plan for future activities, lacked independent documentation of collaborator interest or funding, and the support letters' praise was insufficient to show he is well-positioned to develop new drugs.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed prong 2: he lacked a model or plan for future activities, lacked independent documentation of collaborator interest or funding, and the support letters' praise was insufficient to show he is well-positioned to develop new drugs.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_04_B5203; source_row=43012 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner's endeavor was scoped to his employing company's interests and specific clientele, without sufficiently demonstrating broader national or global impact in the language testing field. The employer's letter described the work as a 'key company initiative' benefiting the company's clients but did not establish field-wide impact commensurate with national importance.
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 Petitioner's endeavor was scoped to his employing company's interests and specific clientele, without sufficiently demonstrating broader national or global impact in the language testing field. The employer's letter described the work as a 'key company initiative' benefiting the company's clients but did not establish field-wide impact commensurate with national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_02_B5203; source_row=42997 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that while the Petitioner has an advanced degree and has published research, the record does not show primary responsibility for research funding, field-wide impact or implementation of his research, citations by relevant parties at a sufficient level of interest, or other markers of success indicating he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
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 has an advanced degree and has published research, the record does not show primary responsibility for research funding, field-wide impact or implementation of his research, citations by relevant parties at a sufficient level of interest, or other markers of success indicating he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_02_B5203; source_row=42998 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner only briefly discussed her roles on appeal and did not address the Director's evidentiary deficiencies or overcome the Director's conclusions.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner only briefly discussed her roles on appeal and did not address the Director's evidentiary deficiencies or overcome the Director's conclusions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_01_B2203; source_row=42981 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c