Source-backed decision research

Explore how AAO evaluates evidence.

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.

Clear filters

10,847 decisions / 36,849 findings

Showing 171180

NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Computer Science / AIEngineer

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO finds the endeavor is defined by and constricted to the Petitioner's role at his employer; broader impacts attributed to employer products are not shown to flow from the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Letters generically describe his work without concrete details of future impact, and economic/job-creation claims lack a sufficiently direct connection to the proposed endeavor.

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 finds the endeavor is defined by and constricted to the Petitioner's role at his employer; broader impacts attributed to employer products are not shown to flow from the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Letters generically describe his work without concrete details of future impact, and economic/job-creation claims lack a sufficiently direct connection to the proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_05_B5203; source_row=45055
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Electrical / Electronic Engineering

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Scholarly authorship

authorship of scholarly articles

Why the evidence was persuasive

Both SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied the scholarly articles criterion; AAO did not separately analyze this criterion.

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 +
Both SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied the scholarly articles criterion; AAO did not separately analyze this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_02_B2203; source_row=45035
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Electrical / Electronic Engineering

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Final merits

final merits determination

What the decision said

AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted the record in aggregate 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 explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted the record in aggregate does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_02_B2203; source_row=45038
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · JudgingEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Electrical / Electronic Engineering

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Judging

judging the work of others

Why the evidence was persuasive

Both SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion; AAO did not separately analyze this criterion.

Why this is useful

See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.

View full reasoning +
Both SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion; AAO did not separately analyze this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_02_B2203; source_row=45033
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Computer Science / AI56 citations

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why the evidence was persuasive

AAO agreed with SCOPS on substantial merit, but withdrew SCOPS' conclusion on national importance. AAO found that the Petitioner's research on bio-inspired feature reduction, supported by letters discussing contributions to machine learning and evidence of dissemination, established both substantial merit and national importance.

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 with SCOPS on substantial merit, but withdrew SCOPS' conclusion on national importance. AAO found that the Petitioner's research on bio-inspired feature reduction, supported by letters discussing contributions to machine learning and evidence of dissemination, established both substantial merit and national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_01_B5203; source_row=45027
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
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 found that the support letters primarily discussed the Petitioner's graduate research rather than his proposed endeavor as an employee, lacked specificity about prospective national impact, and were not backed by documentary evidence of DoD or U.S. Army interest in his specific work.…

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 support letters primarily discussed the Petitioner's graduate research rather than his proposed endeavor as an employee, lacked specificity about prospective national impact, and were not backed by documentary evidence of DoD or U.S. Army interest in his specific work. The record did not show that edge AI computing was integral to his employer's competition participation or that his work had widespread interest beyond benefits to his specific employer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_04_B5203; source_row=45052
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipReservedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Social Sciences

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Scholarly authorship

scholarly articles

What the decision said

AAO declined to reach the scholarly articles criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless, making further analysis unnecessary.

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 declined to reach the scholarly articles criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless, making further analysis unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_01_B2203; source_row=45024
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Social Sciences

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Leading / critical role

roles

What the decision said

AAO declined to reach the roles criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless, making further analysis unnecessary.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach the roles criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless, making further analysis unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-16_01_B2203; source_row=45025
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot established

Case facts

Medicine / ClinicalPhD59 citations

Issue evaluated

NIW · Waiver on balance

on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO held that because the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance the endeavor, her contributions to pediatric cardiac medicine do not supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply through the labor certification process.

Why this is useful

See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.

View full reasoning +
AAO held that because the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance the endeavor, her contributions to pediatric cardiac medicine do not supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply through the labor certification process.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=44996
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot established

Case facts

Medicine / ClinicalPhD59 citations

Issue evaluated

NIW · Well positioned

well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with SCOPS, finding the citation count for the single MPS II article unexplained as to field and self-citations, the publication record limited (two articles), insufficient evidence linking her article to the RUSP list addition, scholarship amounts nominal and not tied to her proposed research, no Ph.D.…

Why this is useful

Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with SCOPS, finding the citation count for the single MPS II article unexplained as to field and self-citations, the publication record limited (two articles), insufficient evidence linking her article to the RUSP list addition, scholarship amounts nominal and not tied to her proposed research, no Ph.D. in a critical/emerging technology, and no comprehensive plan or current interest from universities or government funders.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=44995
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
Back to assessment