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 17801–17810
NIWNIW · Well positionedEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agrees the proposed benefit will be national in scope.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agrees the proposed benefit will be national in scope.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-04_01_B5203; source_row=20515 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agrees with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated influence on the field as a whole. Reference letters and project documentation lack specific examples of impact, and online availability of curriculum materials does not by itself show widespread use or influence. Volunteering and unique skills do not establish the required influence.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO agrees with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated influence on the field as a whole. Reference letters and project documentation lack specific examples of impact, and online availability of curriculum materials does not by itself show widespread use or influence. Volunteering and unique skills do not establish the required influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-04_01_B5203; source_row=20516 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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
The reference letters focused on specific project successes without demonstrating impact on the field as a whole, praised skills and traits without tying them to original contributions of major significance, and repeated regulatory language without explaining how the contributions influenced the field. Having a diverse skill set is not itself a 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 +
The reference letters focused on specific project successes without demonstrating impact on the field as a whole, praised skills and traits without tying them to original contributions of major significance, and repeated regulatory language without explaining how the contributions influenced the field. Having a diverse skill set is not itself a contribution of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=20505 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's documentation showed only that a project was presented at a conference; there was no evidence she received the claimed award or that it is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's documentation showed only that a project was presented at a conference; there was no evidence she received the claimed award or that it is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=20503 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The material must be about the petitioner and published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Submission of the Petitioner's own artistic work does not satisfy the criterion, and self-authored documents do not constitute published material about the Petitioner. Additionally, certain documents lacked required English translations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The material must be about the petitioner and published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Submission of the Petitioner's own artistic work does not satisfy the criterion, and self-authored documents do not constitute published material about the Petitioner. Additionally, certain documents lacked required English translations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=20504 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO stated it need not conduct a formal final merits determination given failure at step 1, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established 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 stated it need not conduct a formal final merits determination given failure at step 1, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the required level of expertise.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=20508 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's salary was at the high national average but below the high California regional average where she resides. Her earnings did not establish a high salary in relation 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 +
The Petitioner's salary was at the high national average but below the high California regional average where she resides. Her earnings did not establish a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=20507 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner's documentation of her work exhibited at conferences and at a showcase in Italy supported a finding that this criterion was met.
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 documentation of her work exhibited at conferences and at a showcase in Italy supported a finding that this criterion was met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B2203; source_row=20506 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Form W-2 for 2008 shows the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary only $62,114.16, less than the $65,000 proffered wage, so the Petitioner could not rely on the full-wage-paid exception and was required to demonstrate ability to pay combined proffered wages for all pending petitions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Form W-2 for 2008 shows the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary only $62,114.16, less than the $65,000 proffered wage, so the Petitioner could not rely on the full-wage-paid exception and was required to demonstrate ability to pay combined proffered wages for all pending petitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2016-08-03_01_B5203; source_row=20509 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c