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.
intent to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability (INA § 203(b)(1)(A)(ii))
What the decision said
AAO did not resolve this issue; instead it remanded because the Director's verbatim copying of RFE language did not adequately explain the basis for the determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not resolve this issue; instead it remanded because the Director's verbatim copying of RFE language did not adequately explain the basis for the determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-26_01_B2203; source_row=42503 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the petitioner
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach a substantive conclusion; the Director's verbatim copying from the RFE failed to adequately inform the Petitioner of the reasons for denial.
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 a substantive conclusion; the Director's verbatim copying from the RFE failed to adequately inform the Petitioner of the reasons for denial.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-26_01_B2203; source_row=42498 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AIResearcher
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The support letters were primarily conclusory and did not specify the significance of the Petitioner's contributions or explain unusual influence on the field. Citation statistics did not demonstrate widespread reliance or major significance. Post-filing citations cannot retroactively establish eligibility.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The support letters were primarily conclusory and did not specify the significance of the Petitioner's contributions or explain unusual influence on the field. Citation statistics did not demonstrate widespread reliance or major significance. Post-filing citations cannot retroactively establish eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-23_01_B2203; source_row=42485 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AIResearcher
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner provided no organizational chart or evidence showing his role was leading or critical to business outcomes. Letters from his current employer were too broad and conclusory. Neither organization was shown to have a distinguished reputation—merely obtaining government contracts is insufficient to establish eminence, distinction, or excellence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner provided no organizational chart or evidence showing his role was leading or critical to business outcomes. Letters from his current employer were too broad and conclusory. Neither organization was shown to have a distinguished reputation—merely obtaining government contracts is insufficient to establish eminence, distinction, or excellence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-23_01_B2203; source_row=42487 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAAI's application was still being processed at time of filing and its bylaws do not require outstanding achievements; IEEE Computer Society bylaws are silent on outstanding achievements; ISAC is open to all persons with relevant experience; IAENG membership requirements were not documented. None of the organizations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAAI's application was still being processed at time of filing and its bylaws do not require outstanding achievements; IEEE Computer Society bylaws are silent on outstanding achievements; ISAC is open to all persons with relevant experience; IAENG membership requirements were not documented. None of the organizations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-23_01_B2203; source_row=42483 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that merely winning the award and pointing to its corporate and governmental backing was insufficient; the Petitioner did not address the Director's concerns or provide sufficient evidence of the award's national or international recognition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that merely winning the award and pointing to its corporate and governmental backing was insufficient; the Petitioner did not address the Director's concerns or provide sufficient evidence of the award's national or international recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-23_02_B2203; source_row=42489 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade journals or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner claimed contribution but did not provide evidence of authoring any articles, which alone precluded satisfying this criterion regardless of whether the publication qualified as major media.
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 Petitioner claimed contribution but did not provide evidence of authoring any articles, which alone precluded satisfying this criterion regardless of whether the publication qualified as major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-23_02_B2203; source_row=42493 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c