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.
AAO agreed with the Director that the certificates of appreciation lacked sufficient evidence of selection criteria and were not nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of administrative services/facilities management; rather, they reflected employer recognition for performing job duties well.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the certificates of appreciation lacked sufficient evidence of selection criteria and were not nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of administrative services/facilities management; rather, they reflected employer recognition for performing job duties well.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=42841 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner was performing ordinary job duties — assessing subordinates' performance and candidates' qualifications — rather than judging the work of others in the same or allied field of specification. The evaluations were in fields of military security compliance and linguistics, not in her claimed field of administrative services and facilities management.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner was performing ordinary job duties — assessing subordinates' performance and candidates' qualifications — rather than judging the work of others in the same or allied field of specification. The evaluations were in fields of military security compliance and linguistics, not in her claimed field of administrative services and facilities management.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=42844 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that national importance requires showing the specific endeavor — not the broader field — has broader implications or prospective national impact. The record showed only that the Beneficiary designs components for one employer's audio products, which does not rise to national importance even though the fields of AI and advanced computing are broadly important.
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 that national importance requires showing the specific endeavor — not the broader field — has broader implications or prospective national impact. The record showed only that the Beneficiary designs components for one employer's audio products, which does not rise to national importance even though the fields of AI and advanced computing are broadly important.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_03_B5203; source_row=42853 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence of original contributions failed because the testimonial letters did not explain how the Beneficiary's work had major significance to the broader field, game reviews did not identify the Beneficiary's specific contributions, and the regulation requires field-wide rather than employer-specific major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence of original contributions failed because the testimonial letters did not explain how the Beneficiary's work had major significance to the broader field, game reviews did not identify the Beneficiary's specific contributions, and the regulation requires field-wide rather than employer-specific major significance. The Petitioner's claims about widespread adoption of design principles were unsubstantiated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=42837 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO held that participation in an award-winning project is not documentation of personal receipt of a prize or award. The regulation requires that the individual actually received the award, not just participated in a project that won one. The AAO also noted that the Petitioner submitted no first-hand prize documentation such as certificates from awarding entities.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that participation in an award-winning project is not documentation of personal receipt of a prize or award. The regulation requires that the individual actually received the award, not just participated in a project that won one. The AAO also noted that the Petitioner submitted no first-hand prize documentation such as certificates from awarding entities.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=42835 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the criterion was not met, finding that while the Director erred in giving insufficient weight to web traffic data, the Petitioner still failed to show that the most substantive articles about the Beneficiary appeared in major trade publications or major media.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion was not met, finding that while the Director erred in giving insufficient weight to web traffic data, the Petitioner still failed to show that the most substantive articles about the Beneficiary appeared in major trade publications or major media. Korean newspaper articles only listed the Beneficiary's name and title without substantial discussion of his work, and the publications with deeper coverage lacked circulation evidence to establish their status as major publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=42836 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO affirmed its prior finding that the Petitioner's business plan with modest projected employment (eight employees by year five) and sales figures did not demonstrate national importance or substantial positive economic effects for the United States. The Petitioner's motion merely reargued previously considered evidence without identifying a specific legal or policy error.
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 affirmed its prior finding that the Petitioner's business plan with modest projected employment (eight employees by year five) and sales figures did not demonstrate national importance or substantial positive economic effects for the United States. The Petitioner's motion merely reargued previously considered evidence without identifying a specific legal or policy error.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_02_B5203; source_row=42852 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner had already failed to meet at least three criteria, so addressing criterion (viii) could not change the outcome of the appeal.
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 had already failed to meet at least three criteria, so addressing criterion (viii) could not change the outcome of the appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=42848 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 conduct a formal final merits determination because the threshold evidentiary requirement was not met, though it noted in dicta that the record does not establish the required 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 threshold evidentiary requirement was not met, though it noted in dicta that the record does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_02_B2203; source_row=42851 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c