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 20151–20160
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the leading or critical role criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the leading or critical role criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-08_01_B2203; source_row=17937 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the original contributions criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the original contributions criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-08_01_B2203; source_row=17935 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the membership criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO's prior decision found the beneficiary did not meet the membership criterion; the motion to reconsider did not establish error in this finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-08_01_B2203; source_row=17932 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
What the decision said
The petitioner abandoned the high salary criterion on appeal, though on motion petitioner argued H-1B status restricted the beneficiary from receiving a high salary. AAO found this argument was abandoned on appeal and did not cite legal authority supporting it.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner abandoned the high salary criterion on appeal, though on motion petitioner argued H-1B status restricted the beneficiary from receiving a high salary. AAO found this argument was abandoned on appeal and did not cite legal authority supporting it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-08_01_B2203; source_row=17938 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other88 papers
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO noted that the cited non-precedent decisions are not binding under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), and the petitioner submitted no evidence establishing that the favorable factors in his case equal or exceed those in the cited decisions. The petitioner's most thorough documentation dates from the 1970s and 1980s, and he has not established realistic prospects for conducting his proposed activities in the United States.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted that the cited non-precedent decisions are not binding under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), and the petitioner submitted no evidence establishing that the favorable factors in his case equal or exceed those in the cited decisions. The petitioner's most thorough documentation dates from the 1970s and 1980s, and he has not established realistic prospects for conducting his proposed activities in the United States.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-06_02_B5203; source_row=17931 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other88 papers
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the petitioner's assertions of national benefit rested on speculation about future adoption of unpatented inventions, and the original waiver claim based on a specific phosphate prospecting offer in Florida had been effectively abandoned.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner's assertions of national benefit rested on speculation about future adoption of unpatented inventions, and the original waiver claim based on a specific phosphate prospecting offer in Florida had been effectively abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-06_02_B5203; source_row=17930 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other88 papers
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the petitioner's claimed inventions were speculative and unsupported by patent filings or evidence of practical adoption. His publication claims were inconsistent and inadequately documented, and his claimed Sjogren's Syndrome contribution was based on a computer system adapted by another researcher rather than the petitioner's own medical 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 the petitioner's claimed inventions were speculative and unsupported by patent filings or evidence of practical adoption. His publication claims were inconsistent and inadequately documented, and his claimed Sjogren's Syndrome contribution was based on a computer system adapted by another researcher rather than the petitioner's own medical work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2014-05-06_02_B5203; source_row=17929 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c