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 22201–22210
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipNot established
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering12 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Scholarly authorship
authorship of scholarly articles
Why AAO was not persuaded
The criterion requires scholarly articles in the plural; the petitioner demonstrated only one scholarly article. The conference abstract submission did not establish a published article, and the claimed conference presentation was contradicted by derogatory evidence. The conference also postdated the petition filing.
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 +
The criterion requires scholarly articles in the plural; the petitioner demonstrated only one scholarly article. The conference abstract submission did not establish a published article, and the claimed conference presentation was contradicted by derogatory evidence. The conference also postdated the petition filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B2203; source_row=15597 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Guinness certificate was awarded to Delhi Main Station, not the petitioner. The employer recognition and awards lacked evidence of national/international recognition, nomination processes, or that they were anything other than employee appreciation. Additional academic awards were abandoned on appeal.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Guinness certificate was awarded to Delhi Main Station, not the petitioner. The employer recognition and awards lacked evidence of national/international recognition, nomination processes, or that they were anything other than employee appreciation. Additional academic awards were abandoned on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B2203; source_row=15593 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering12 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The key supporting document was falsified to add the petitioner's name as author; the conference presentation evidence was contradicted by USCIS research. Reference letters did not demonstrate major significance in the field. The patent listed others as inventors.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The key supporting document was falsified to add the petitioner's name as author; the conference presentation evidence was contradicted by USCIS research. Reference letters did not demonstrate major significance in the field. The patent listed others as inventors.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B2203; source_row=15596 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The committee appointments occurred in 2010, after the August 2009 petition filing date, so AAO declined to consider them. Even had the appointments been timely, the petitioner provided no evidence of actually reviewing the work of others, and developing industry practice recommendations does not constitute judging the work of others.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The committee appointments occurred in 2010, after the August 2009 petition filing date, so AAO declined to consider them. Even had the appointments been timely, the petitioner provided no evidence of actually reviewing the work of others, and developing industry practice recommendations does not constitute judging the work of others.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B2203; source_row=15595 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The petitioner provided no comparative salary data for similar positions in the field. A personal salary increase of 35% is not evidence of high remuneration relative to others. The salary as of December 2009 was post-filing and therefore not considered.
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 comparative salary data for similar positions in the field. A personal salary increase of 35% is not evidence of high remuneration relative to others. The salary as of December 2009 was post-filing and therefore not considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B2203; source_row=15598 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The first association admits members via eight categories, only one of which requires outstanding contributions, and that category does not require judgment by recognized national or international experts. The second association's documentation showed membership is open to anyone engaged or interested in relevant fields, with no evidence of required outstanding achievements.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The first association admits members via eight categories, only one of which requires outstanding contributions, and that category does not require judgment by recognized national or international experts. The second association's documentation showed membership is open to anyone engaged or interested in relevant fields, with no evidence of required outstanding achievements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B2203; source_row=15594 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the expert letters described advanced skills and promising research topics but did not demonstrate that the petitioner's specific work had influenced the field as a whole. Much of the strongest evidence (a coauthored publication, work at a new laboratory) post-dated the filing date and could not be considered.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the expert letters described advanced skills and promising research topics but did not demonstrate that the petitioner's specific work had influenced the field as a whole. Much of the strongest evidence (a coauthored publication, work at a new laboratory) post-dated the filing date and could not be considered. Claims of labor shortages and unique skills were properly matters for the labor certification process, not grounds for a national interest waiver. Academic honors were insufficient to show field-level influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_01_B5203; source_row=15602 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves national interest to substantially greater degree than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the beneficiary's teaching duties, curriculum development, awards for unbuilt structures, research on cellular urbanism, and work as an intern architect did not establish a past record of achievement with sufficient influence on the field as a whole.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the beneficiary's teaching duties, curriculum development, awards for unbuilt structures, research on cellular urbanism, and work as an intern architect did not establish a past record of achievement with sufficient influence on the field as a whole. Conclusory letters, speculation about future impact, and evidence of exceptional ability alone do not establish that the national interest would be served to a substantially greater degree than by a U.S. worker.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2013-01-09_02_B5203; source_row=15612 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c