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 22001–22010
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO did not dispute the director's finding that the petitioner's work in transportation safety and lithium-ion battery crash safety has substantial intrinsic merit.
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 did not dispute the director's finding that the petitioner's work in transportation safety and lithium-ion battery crash safety has substantial intrinsic merit.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-19_02_B5203; source_row=15869 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
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 agreed with the director that the petitioner had not shown impact on the field as a whole. AAO emphasized that witness letters were largely copied from one another, undermining credibility, and that the petitioner provided no objective quantification of his work's impact despite the quantifiable nature of cost-savings claims.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the director that the petitioner had not shown impact on the field as a whole. AAO emphasized that witness letters were largely copied from one another, undermining credibility, and that the petitioner provided no objective quantification of his work's impact despite the quantifiable nature of cost-savings claims.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-15_01_B5203; source_row=15851 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed the denial, finding that the record shows only the petitioner's role in specific research studies, not a leading or critical role for any organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. Additionally, the regulation's plural phrasing requires evidence of such roles in multiple organizations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed the denial, finding that the record shows only the petitioner's role in specific research studies, not a leading or critical role for any organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. Additionally, the regulation's plural phrasing requires evidence of such roles in multiple organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-13_02_B2203; source_row=15840 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted its own final merits determination and found that the aggregate evidence fails to show the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim or risen to the very top of the field of neurobiology.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted its own final merits determination and found that the aggregate evidence fails to show the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim or risen to the very top of the field of neurobiology. Reference letters speculate about future potential; his publication and peer review activity is routine at his career stage; and the evidence of impact falls short of demonstrating he is among the small percentage at the top.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-13_02_B2203; source_row=15841 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reversed the director's finding, concluding that while the petitioner's work is original, the evidence fails to show contributions of major significance: reference letters speculate about future potential rather than established impact, citation counts and peer review are routine, and no evidence shows the field was widely or deeply influenced by the petitioner's findings.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO reversed the director's finding, concluding that while the petitioner's work is original, the evidence fails to show contributions of major significance: reference letters speculate about future potential rather than established impact, citation counts and peer review are routine, and no evidence shows the field was widely or deeply influenced by the petitioner's findings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-13_02_B2203; source_row=15838 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 AAO disagreed with the director, finding that while the petitioner's work was original, the evidence failed to show contributions of major significance in the entire field of neurobiology.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the director, finding that while the petitioner's work was original, the evidence failed to show contributions of major significance in the entire field of neurobiology. Reference letters primarily speculated about future potential impact rather than demonstrating already-achieved major significance, citation evidence was insufficient to show wide acceptance, and press release and review article evidence used speculative language.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-13_03_B2203; source_row=15845 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the record lacked evidence that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for any organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. Reference letters discussed his role in specific research studies or groups, not in an organization or establishment.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the record lacked evidence that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for any organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. Reference letters discussed his role in specific research studies or groups, not in an organization or establishment. Additionally, the plain language of the regulation requires evidence of roles in multiple (plural) organizations with distinguished reputations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-13_03_B2203; source_row=15847 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner submitted evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade publications.
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 affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner submitted evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-02-13_02_B2203; source_row=15839 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c