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.
Advanced degree must be issued by an accredited U.S. educational institution
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded an accreditation requirement is implicit in the regulation's repeated use of 'United States' degrees, which it read as requiring nationally-recognized (i.e., accredited) institutions, and that post-hoc accreditation of the school does not retroactively qualify a degree awarded before accreditation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO concluded an accreditation requirement is implicit in the regulation's repeated use of 'United States' degrees, which it read as requiring nationally-recognized (i.e., accredited) institutions, and that post-hoc accreditation of the school does not retroactively qualify a degree awarded before accreditation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-21_01_B5203; source_row=20858 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national/international acclaim at the very top of the field
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that peer review activities, editorial board and expert panel roles, nationally and internationally cited research incorporated into US and Australian clinical guidelines, and expert characterizations of the Petitioner as an elite top clinical researcher collectively establish the Petitioner as among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that peer review activities, editorial board and expert panel roles, nationally and internationally cited research incorporated into US and Australian clinical guidelines, and expert characterizations of the Petitioner as an elite top clinical researcher collectively establish the Petitioner as among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-14_01_B2203; source_row=20853 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO affirmed the Director's finding that criterion (iv) was satisfied, noting that the Petitioner performed peer review for several journals, served on expert panels, and sat on editorial boards.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed the Director's finding that criterion (iv) was satisfied, noting that the Petitioner performed peer review for several journals, served on expert panels, and sat on editorial boards.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-14_01_B2203; source_row=20850 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Director erred in two ways: (1) dismissing reference letters without evaluating the corroborating evidence, and (2) making an improper aggregate citation comparison not required by the regulatory language.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director erred in two ways: (1) dismissing reference letters without evaluating the corroborating evidence, and (2) making an improper aggregate citation comparison not required by the regulatory language. AAO credited corroborated reference letters, inclusion in national clinical guidelines in two countries, and citation data showing four articles from 2011 or later in the top 10% of cited articles in clinical medicine of the same year, finding these establish contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-14_01_B2203; source_row=20851 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Petitioner played a critical role because he served as one of a limited number of research foundation directors for an organization where research is a major part of its mission, and also contributed to promotional and credentialing activities for a worldwide association with over 75,000 members.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner played a critical role because he served as one of a limited number of research foundation directors for an organization where research is a major part of its mission, and also contributed to promotional and credentialing activities for a worldwide association with over 75,000 members. AAO also criticized the Director for wrongly importing contributions-criterion factors into the leading-or-critical-role analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=20856 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the totality of the Petitioner's record — peer review activities, widespread citations in both Chinese and English-language journals, critical roles in a major worldwide accounting association — establishes sustained national or international acclaim and qualifies the Petitioner as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the totality of the Petitioner's record — peer review activities, widespread citations in both Chinese and English-language journals, critical roles in a major worldwide accounting association — establishes sustained national or international acclaim and qualifies the Petitioner as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=20857 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion; AAO also noted that the Director improperly attempted to require evidence of article impact at step 1, which is a final merits consideration only.
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 +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion; AAO also noted that the Director improperly attempted to require evidence of article impact at step 1, which is a final merits consideration only.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-14_02_B2203; source_row=20855 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
ability to pay proffered wage (single beneficiary and combined sponsored workers)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the pre-priority-date tax returns were insufficient to establish ability to pay for 2015 and beyond; the 2015 financial statements were mere compilations (not audits) and therefore unreliable; bank statements are not among the prescribed evidence types under 8 C.F.R.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the pre-priority-date tax returns were insufficient to establish ability to pay for 2015 and beyond; the 2015 financial statements were mere compilations (not audits) and therefore unreliable; bank statements are not among the prescribed evidence types under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and cannot show sustainable ability to pay; and staffing contracts imposed no obligation on the nursing homes to hire the Petitioner's workers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-11-09_01_B5203; source_row=20849 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c