Source-backed decision research

Explore how AAO evaluates evidence.

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.

Clear filters

10,847 decisions / 36,849 findings

Showing 141150

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

AAO disagreed with SCOPS, finding the support letters contained conclusory statements without specific details explaining how the Petitioner's contributions had major significance in the broader field. AAO emphasized that letters must specifically describe the contribution and its significance, and that USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements.

Why this is useful

Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.

View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with SCOPS, finding the support letters contained conclusory statements without specific details explaining how the Petitioner's contributions had major significance in the broader field. AAO emphasized that letters must specifically describe the contribution and its significance, and that USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_03_B2203; source_row=45078
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Computer Science / AIPhD0 citations

Issue evaluated

NIW · Well positioned

well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found that the Petitioner's graduate research, publications, limited citations, awards, peer review activity, and letters of support collectively did not demonstrate a record of success or progress sufficient to show she was well positioned. Her Ph.D.…

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 the Petitioner's graduate research, publications, limited citations, awards, peer review activity, and letters of support collectively did not demonstrate a record of success or progress sufficient to show she was well positioned. Her Ph.D. alone was insufficient, her citations lacked comparative benchmarking and qualitative weight, her awards lacked demonstrated prestige, and no evidence of significant research funding was present.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B5203; source_row=45067
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AI

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Leading / critical role

leading or critical role

Why AAO was not persuaded

The letters of recommendation make broad, unsupported statements without detailed specifics demonstrating how the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, and lack corroborating documentation for claimed outcomes such as increased productivity and cost savings.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
The letters of recommendation make broad, unsupported statements without detailed specifics demonstrating how the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, and lack corroborating documentation for claimed outcomes such as increased productivity and cost savings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B2203; source_row=45063
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AI

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · High remuneration

high salary or remuneration

Why AAO was not persuaded

The Robert Half data covered information security managers rather than IT specialists and did not specify the Petitioner's location; the Glassdoor and Indeed data showed only average or median salaries, which does not establish a 'high salary' relative to others in the field as required.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
The Robert Half data covered information security managers rather than IT specialists and did not specify the Petitioner's location; the Glassdoor and Indeed data showed only average or median salaries, which does not establish a 'high salary' relative to others in the field as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B2203; source_row=45064
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · MembershipNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AI

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Membership

memberships

Why AAO was not persuaded

The senior membership requirements—professional occupation attainment and years of experience—do not reflect outstanding achievements, and the Petitioner failed to show that recognized national or international experts judge senior membership applications.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
The senior membership requirements—professional occupation attainment and years of experience—do not reflect outstanding achievements, and the Petitioner failed to show that recognized national or international experts judge senior membership applications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B2203; source_row=45059
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AI

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Published material

published materials

Why AAO was not persuaded

The YouTube video lacked the required author; the Wikipedia information was unreliable and failed to establish major media status; three of four online articles lacked required title, date, or author; and the remaining article's publication was not shown to be a professional or major trade publication.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
The YouTube video lacked the required author; the Wikipedia information was unreliable and failed to establish major media status; three of four online articles lacked required title, date, or author; and the remaining article's publication was not shown to be a professional or major trade publication.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B2203; source_row=45060
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · AwardsNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AI

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Awards

prizes or awards

Why AAO was not persuaded

The awards lack evidence of recognition beyond the awarding organization's internal personnel actions, and because they honored only employees of the companies, they do not establish issuance 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 awards lack evidence of recognition beyond the awarding organization's internal personnel actions, and because they honored only employees of the companies, they do not establish issuance for 'excellence in the field.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B2203; source_row=45058
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AIEngineer

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Final merits

final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim and top of field

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found no error in SCOPS' approach of considering step-one evidence in the final merits analysis, and independently concluded the Petitioner had not demonstrated sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.…

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO found no error in SCOPS' approach of considering step-one evidence in the final merits analysis, and independently concluded the Petitioner had not demonstrated sustained acclaim or top-of-field status. The letters were general and not indicative of acclaim from the broader field, the media coverage was limited to a few months and four articles, peer review was minimal (13 conference submissions and 1 journal review), and the publication record was too modest. The Petitioner's argument about operational anonymity in national security work did not cure the deficiencies.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_02_B2203; source_row=45076
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Published material

published materials

Why the evidence was persuasive

AAO disagreed with SCOPS and found the Ad Age article, which named the Petitioner and discussed her and her team's contributions, satisfied the published materials criterion for a major trade publication.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with SCOPS and found the Ad Age article, which named the Petitioner and discussed her and her team's contributions, satisfied the published materials criterion for a major trade publication.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_03_B2203; source_row=45077
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Computer Science / AIPhD0 citations

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why the evidence was persuasive

AAO agreed with SCOPS on substantial merit but withdrew SCOPS' finding on national importance. AAO found that the Petitioner demonstrated both substantial merit and national importance by showing broader implications in industrial engineering through dissemination via journals and conferences, and through letters of support.

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 with SCOPS on substantial merit but withdrew SCOPS' finding on national importance. AAO found that the Petitioner demonstrated both substantial merit and national importance by showing broader implications in industrial engineering through dissemination via journals and conferences, and through letters of support.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-17_01_B5203; source_row=45066
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
Back to assessment