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.
While the Beneficiary's contributions to the firm were notable, the record did not show how these successes resulted in 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 +
While the Beneficiary's contributions to the firm were notable, the record did not show how these successes resulted in national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_03_B2203; source_row=23910 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why the evidence was persuasive
The record contained sufficient documentation from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish that the Beneficiary commands a high salary in relation 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 +
The record contained sufficient documentation from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish that the Beneficiary commands a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_03_B2203; source_row=23911 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural EngineeringPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed most articles did not qualify, but found one article discussing the Petitioner and his research on environmental waste as a shield against radiation satisfies the regulation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed most articles did not qualify, but found one article discussing the Petitioner and his research on environmental waste as a shield against radiation satisfies the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_02_B2203; source_row=23899 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
An article presented at a 2014 conference was published in the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, which AAO accepted as a professional journal.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
An article presented at a 2014 conference was published in the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, which AAO accepted as a professional journal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_02_B2203; source_row=23901 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to fully conduct the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed at step one, but offered an advisory observation that the aggregate record would not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to fully conduct the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed at step one, but offered an advisory observation that the aggregate record would not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_01_B2203; source_row=23893 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that none of the articles met the regulatory requirement to state the name of the author. Additionally, inconsistencies in the articles regarding the Petitioner's team membership start date called the evidence's reliability into question.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that none of the articles met the regulatory requirement to state the name of the author. Additionally, inconsistencies in the articles regarding the Petitioner's team membership start date called the evidence's reliability into question.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-30_01_B2203; source_row=23890 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
intention to employ beneficiary in the offered position at the certified worksite
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record inconsistent regarding whether the Beneficiary would actually work at the headquarters worksite listed on the labor certification, citing site-visit statements that sponsored beneficiaries typically work at client sites and that the only in-house project was expected to end in 2018. AAO remanded for additional fact-finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the record inconsistent regarding whether the Beneficiary would actually work at the headquarters worksite listed on the labor certification, citing site-visit statements that sponsored beneficiaries typically work at client sites and that the only in-house project was expected to end in 2018. AAO remanded for additional fact-finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-25_01_B5203; source_row=23887 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics5 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the Petitioner's Evaluation Plan, citation counts, and recommendation letters did not establish original contributions of major significance. The evaluation plan lacked demonstrated pre-filing impact, citation rankings did not automatically equate to major significance, and recommendation letters were too general and conclusory.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the Petitioner's Evaluation Plan, citation counts, and recommendation letters did not establish original contributions of major significance. The evaluation plan lacked demonstrated pre-filing impact, citation rankings did not automatically equate to major significance, and recommendation letters were too general and conclusory.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-04-24_01_B2203; source_row=23883 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c