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 201–210
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner's failure to meet at least two of the other claimed criteria meant he could not numerically reach the required three criteria regardless of the outcome on this criterion.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner's failure to meet at least two of the other claimed criteria meant he could not numerically reach the required three criteria regardless of the outcome on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-13_02_B2203; source_row=44998 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reserved this criterion for the same reason as criterion (v): the Petitioner's failure to meet at least two other criteria made it unnecessary to address this one.
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 reserved this criterion for the same reason as criterion (v): the Petitioner's failure to meet at least two other criteria made it unnecessary to address this one.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-13_02_B2203; source_row=44999 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found substantial merit but not national importance. The Beneficiary's duties as a study management associate II support the Petitioner's operations but the record does not demonstrate that his individual role—as one member of a project management team—would have broader industry-wide implications or generate substantial positive economic effects attributable specifically to him.…
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 substantial merit but not national importance. The Beneficiary's duties as a study management associate II support the Petitioner's operations but the record does not demonstrate that his individual role—as one member of a project management team—would have broader industry-wide implications or generate substantial positive economic effects attributable specifically to him. Recommendation letters addressed the importance of the field and the Beneficiary's experience rather than the prospective national impact of his specific proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-12_01_B5203; source_row=44970 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner did not establish national importance, finding the endeavor not focused on a specific venture, that general intentions were not corroborated by evidence of plausible pursuit at the described scope, and that benefits to specific employers do not establish broader implications for a field, region, or public at large.
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 the Petitioner did not establish national importance, finding the endeavor not focused on a specific venture, that general intentions were not corroborated by evidence of plausible pursuit at the described scope, and that benefits to specific employers do not establish broader implications for a field, region, or public at large.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-12_02_B5203; source_row=44978 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 agreed the Petitioner failed the final merits determination. His acclaim was mostly recent rather than sustained over his career, the record lacked extensive documentation, and support letters did not adequately explain his ranking among the small percentage at the field's top. AAO found SCOPS did not impose novel requirements and properly distinguished the step-1 and step-2 salary analyses.
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 failed the final merits determination. His acclaim was mostly recent rather than sustained over his career, the record lacked extensive documentation, and support letters did not adequately explain his ranking among the small percentage at the field's top. AAO found SCOPS did not impose novel requirements and properly distinguished the step-1 and step-2 salary analyses.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-12_02_B2203; source_row=44977 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
State Bar complaint requirement under Lozada
Why the evidence was persuasive
The newly submitted emails from the State Bar of Georgia confirmed receipt and pending review of a grievance against former counsel, satisfying the Lozada requirement of filing a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary authority.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The newly submitted emails from the State Bar of Georgia confirmed receipt and pending review of a grievance against former counsel, satisfying the Lozada requirement of filing a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary authority.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-12_04_B5203; source_row=44984 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Sworn statement detailing scope of representation under Lozada
Why the evidence was persuasive
The new statements from both the Petitioner and former counsel provided sufficient detail about the scope of representation and the specific failure by prior counsel to notify USCIS of the change of address, satisfying this Lozada requirement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new statements from both the Petitioner and former counsel provided sufficient detail about the scope of representation and the specific failure by prior counsel to notify USCIS of the change of address, satisfying this Lozada requirement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-12_04_B5203; source_row=44985 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the ultimate conclusion that the record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field status. Media coverage was not shown comparable to top performers; project impact appeared limited to the employer; citation evidence was mischaracterized (journal-level vs.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the ultimate conclusion that the record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field status. Media coverage was not shown comparable to top performers; project impact appeared limited to the employer; citation evidence was mischaracterized (journal-level vs. article-level); salary comparison was to an inapplicable job title; and recommendation letters lacked corroborating evidence for their broad claims.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-12_01_B2203; source_row=44969 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c