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 14841–14850
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherResearcher20 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner's citation numbers did not demonstrate contributions of major significance, and recommendation letters used hyperbolic language about unique skills without explaining how his work had significantly impacted the field. Publications and presentations alone are insufficient without evidence of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's citation numbers did not demonstrate contributions of major significance, and recommendation letters used hyperbolic language about unique skills without explaining how his work had significantly impacted the field. Publications and presentations alone are insufficient without evidence of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-27_02_B2203; source_row=23762 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
None of the claimed awards were shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the specific field of infectious diseases. The scholarship pertained to academic study rather than the field of endeavor, and the appeal-only awards lacked corroborating evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
None of the claimed awards were shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the specific field of infectious diseases. The scholarship pertained to academic study rather than the field of endeavor, and the appeal-only awards lacked corroborating evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-27_02_B2203; source_row=23760 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to waive job offer and labor certification
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner had not established the first and second prongs, rendering further analysis of the balancing factors unnecessary.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner had not established the first and second prongs, rendering further analysis of the balancing factors unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-27_01_B5203; source_row=23759 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherResearcher20 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the Step 1 threshold of three criteria. AAO nonetheless noted in dicta that the record does not support the required level of 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 conduct a formal final merits determination because the petitioner failed to meet the Step 1 threshold of three criteria. AAO nonetheless noted in dicta that the record does not support the required level of acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-27_02_B2203; source_row=23764 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering13 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's evidence—including the Beneficiary's own statement, the CEO's letter, recommendation letters, and citation data—consisted of broad generalizations, speculative future impacts, and unsupported assertions of significance. None of the evidence specifically detailed how the Beneficiary's work had already had a major impact on the overall field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's evidence—including the Beneficiary's own statement, the CEO's letter, recommendation letters, and citation data—consisted of broad generalizations, speculative future impacts, and unsupported assertions of significance. None of the evidence specifically detailed how the Beneficiary's work had already had a major impact on the overall field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=23755 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Materials Science30 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show his work was of major significance. Citation evidence showed articles cited in the range of 3–74 times, but citations were used as background information rather than singling out the work as particularly important. Expert letters characterized work as pioneering and milestone-level but the record did not show the work had been widely implemented.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show his work was of major significance. Citation evidence showed articles cited in the range of 3–74 times, but citations were used as background information rather than singling out the work as particularly important. Expert letters characterized work as pioneering and milestone-level but the record did not show the work had been widely implemented. Publication in top-ranked journals established originality but not major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-03-26_02_B2203; source_row=23745 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c