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 1701–1710
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
What the decision said
AAO reserved consideration of this criterion because the Petitioner failed the awards criterion and could not meet the minimum three criteria regardless of findings on leading/critical role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved consideration of this criterion because the Petitioner failed the awards criterion and could not meet the minimum three criteria regardless of findings on leading/critical role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_01_B2203; source_row=42655 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's evidence failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work as a Senior Electrical Test Process Engineer would impact the broader field or national economy beyond the Petitioner's own operations.…
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 found the Petitioner's evidence failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work as a Senior Electrical Test Process Engineer would impact the broader field or national economy beyond the Petitioner's own operations. Supporting letters conflated the national importance of the general profession and industry with that of the specific proposed endeavor, and the submitted articles did not mention the Beneficiary or her projects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-13_02_B5203; source_row=42650 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
National and international recognition flows from awareness of the accolade in the field, not merely from the reputation of the issuing entity. The Petitioner's institution is not on par with R1/R2 doctoral universities, and she provided no probative evidence the award is widely recognized outside the issuing institution.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
National and international recognition flows from awareness of the accolade in the field, not merely from the reputation of the issuing entity. The Petitioner's institution is not on par with R1/R2 doctoral universities, and she provided no probative evidence the award is widely recognized outside the issuing institution.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-10_01_B2203; source_row=42624 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The diploma was issued to the Petitioner's company, not to him personally. For a team award to qualify, the petitioner must be one of the named recipients, appear on a podium/stage, or receive a trophy/medal, none of which was shown here. Additionally, the record lacks evidence that a national or international audience was aware of the award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The diploma was issued to the Petitioner's company, not to him personally. For a team award to qualify, the petitioner must be one of the named recipients, appear on a podium/stage, or receive a trophy/medal, none of which was shown here. Additionally, the record lacks evidence that a national or international audience was aware of the award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-10_03_B2203; source_row=42638 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner's academic transcript evidences a three-year program, not a four-year degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The credential evaluator failed to explain how a three-year program equates to a four-year degree, and the Petitioner cannot supplement the degree with additional certificates or experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner's academic transcript evidences a three-year program, not a four-year degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The credential evaluator failed to explain how a three-year program equates to a four-year degree, and the Petitioner cannot supplement the degree with additional certificates or experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-10_01_B5203; source_row=42631 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Materials SciencePhD15 reviews
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that citation percentile rankings alone do not establish major significance, as even papers with very few citations can rank in the top 10% or 1% by year. The support letters did not adequately demonstrate that the citing works had significant field-wide impact. Peer review service is primarily evaluative and does not constitute an original contribution of 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 citation percentile rankings alone do not establish major significance, as even papers with very few citations can rank in the top 10% or 1% by year. The support letters did not adequately demonstrate that the citing works had significant field-wide impact. Peer review service is primarily evaluative and does not constitute an original contribution of major significance. Post-filing citation increases are not cognizable because eligibility must be established at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-10_04_B2203; source_row=42643 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly. Job creation of one to three employees is insufficient to demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and the submitted articles and expert letter do not show the prospective impact of his specific endeavor at a national level.
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 found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly. Job creation of one to three employees is insufficient to demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and the submitted articles and expert letter do not show the prospective impact of his specific endeavor at a national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-10_02_B5203; source_row=42635 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the Petitioner's unsupported projections and broad claims about job creation and economic growth did not demonstrate that her endeavor would operate at a scale of national importance, lacked evidentiary foundation, and failed to show broader implications in her field or substantial positive regional or national economic effects.
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 +
The AAO found that the Petitioner's unsupported projections and broad claims about job creation and economic growth did not demonstrate that her endeavor would operate at a scale of national importance, lacked evidentiary foundation, and failed to show broader implications in her field or substantial positive regional or national economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-10_04_B5203; source_row=42645 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c