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 1461–1470
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high remuneration for services
Why AAO was not persuaded
Despite the Petitioner's claim that she submitted additional documentation on appeal, no such documentation beyond the appeal brief was provided, and the criterion remains unsatisfied.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Despite the Petitioner's claim that she submitted additional documentation on appeal, no such documentation beyond the appeal brief was provided, and the criterion remains unsatisfied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_01_B2203; source_row=42983 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because the regulation and the RFE had put the Petitioner on notice of what was required.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because the regulation and the RFE had put the Petitioner on notice of what was required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43006 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner could not numerically reach the required three criteria regardless of its outcome, making a ruling on this ground unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner could not numerically reach the required three criteria regardless of its outcome, making a ruling on this ground unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43005 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because the regulation and the Director's RFE had already put the Petitioner on notice of the required evidence and gave her a reasonable 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 +
AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because the regulation and the Director's RFE had already put the Petitioner on notice of the required evidence and gave her a reasonable opportunity to provide it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43001 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step one, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step one, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_03_B2203; source_row=43007 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences100 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO reserved the first prong as unnecessary given the prong-2 failure, but indicated in a footnote that the record does not actually demonstrate national importance and instructed the Petitioner to address this on any motion.
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 reserved the first prong as unnecessary given the prong-2 failure, but indicated in a footnote that the record does not actually demonstrate national importance and instructed the Petitioner to address this on any motion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_04_B5203; source_row=43011 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences100 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States
What the decision said
Having found prong 2 dispositive, AAO did not separately analyze the third prong, concluding only that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for or otherwise merited a waiver as a matter of discretion.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
Having found prong 2 dispositive, AAO did not separately analyze the third prong, concluding only that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for or otherwise merited a waiver as a matter of discretion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-02-05_04_B5203; source_row=43013 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c