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 17781–17790
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's annual salary of $107,712 was below the Level 4 prevailing wage of $121,805, the $68/hour billing rate appeared to be the client billing rate not his personal salary, and his Indian salary of eight lakh rupees was below what good software programmers can easily earn, all failing to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the 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 the Petitioner's annual salary of $107,712 was below the Level 4 prevailing wage of $121,805, the $68/hour billing rate appeared to be the client billing rate not his personal salary, and his Indian salary of eight lakh rupees was below what good software programmers can easily earn, all failing to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-09_01_B2203; source_row=20537 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that letters discussing the Petitioner's exemplary work on projects do not address his relative position within the organizations or his overall impact on the establishments, and that operating as an individual contributor on large projects does not constitute a leading or critical role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that letters discussing the Petitioner's exemplary work on projects do not address his relative position within the organizations or his overall impact on the establishments, and that operating as an individual contributor on large projects does not constitute a leading or critical role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-09_01_B2203; source_row=20536 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the thesis was not shown to have appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. AAO also found that the article the Petitioner claimed cited his thesis did not in fact contain such a citation, and that conference presentations do not satisfy the authorship requirement regardless.
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 found that the thesis was not shown to have appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. AAO also found that the article the Petitioner claimed cited his thesis did not in fact contain such a citation, and that conference presentations do not satisfy the authorship requirement regardless.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-09_01_B2203; source_row=20535 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, but noted the aggregate record does not support the required level of expertise.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step 1, but noted the aggregate record does not support the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-09_01_B2203; source_row=20538 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The biographical volumes were for-profit publications with no evidence of national or international recognition. The organization's nominations were not prizes or awards per the plain language of the regulation, and a government website identified the organization as a scam that charges money for its honors. The petitioner did not rebut these concerns.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The biographical volumes were for-profit publications with no evidence of national or international recognition. The organization's nominations were not prizes or awards per the plain language of the regulation, and a government website identified the organization as a scam that charges money for its honors. The petitioner did not rebut these concerns.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=20526 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
The criterion is limited by its plain language to artistic exhibitions and showcases. Because the petitioner is not an artist and scientific presentations are already counted under the scholarly articles criterion, counting them again here would undermine the requirement to satisfy three separate criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The criterion is limited by its plain language to artistic exhibitions and showcases. Because the petitioner is not an artist and scientific presentations are already counted under the scholarly articles criterion, counting them again here would undermine the requirement to satisfy three separate criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=20531 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO rejected the petitioner's legal challenge to the two-step approach, finding it consistent with the statute, regulations, and federal case law including post-appeal Ninth Circuit reaffirmations.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO rejected the petitioner's legal challenge to the two-step approach, finding it consistent with the statute, regulations, and federal case law including post-appeal Ninth Circuit reaffirmations. On the merits, the evidence in aggregate did not establish the petitioner as among the small percentage at the top of the field; judging was routine, publications were dated and uncited, contributions lacked corroboration, and expert letters stood alone without supporting independent documentation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=20533 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner is not a named member of the research collaboration, not a credited author on any of its articles or presentations, and not an identified collaborator in any memorandum of understanding. The record also lacks evidence that he was ever employed at the university he claimed a role with.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner is not a named member of the research collaboration, not a credited author on any of its articles or presentations, and not an identified collaborator in any memorandum of understanding. The record also lacks evidence that he was ever employed at the university he claimed a role with.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=20532 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Physics
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Expert letters described the petitioner's work as having potential future significance but did not demonstrate existing major impact on the field. The petitioner had no peer-reviewed publications as a credited author on the mirror design work, was not a listed member or credited coauthor of the research collaboration, and citation or follow-up evidence in the field was absent.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Expert letters described the petitioner's work as having potential future significance but did not demonstrate existing major impact on the field. The petitioner had no peer-reviewed publications as a credited author on the mirror design work, was not a listed member or credited coauthor of the research collaboration, and citation or follow-up evidence in the field was absent.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=20529 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The record includes articles in journals dating from 1997 through 1999 and presentations published in proceedings in 1997 and 1998, supporting the Director's favorable finding.
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 +
The record includes articles in journals dating from 1997 through 1999 and presentations published in proceedings in 1997 and 1998, supporting the Director's favorable finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=20530 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c