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 22581–22590
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration
What the decision said
The high-salary claim was raised for the first time on appeal. Under Matter of Soriano, the AAO declined to consider claims raised for the first time on appeal.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The high-salary claim was raised for the first time on appeal. Under Matter of Soriano, the AAO declined to consider claims raised for the first time on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_02_B2203; source_row=15146 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalPhysician
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the witness letters exaggerated and lacking corroboration, the citation evidence minimal (six independent citations of one article), counsel's shift from 'pure clinician' to researcher a material change not permitted post-filing, and the claimed benefit to a single hospital's national rank not a national interest issue.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the witness letters exaggerated and lacking corroboration, the citation evidence minimal (six independent citations of one article), counsel's shift from 'pure clinician' to researcher a material change not permitted post-filing, and the claimed benefit to a single hospital's national rank not a national interest issue. No objective evidence demonstrated the petitioner stands apart from other recently-trained physicians.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_02_B5203; source_row=15150 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other20 papers
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker with same minimum qualifications
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO agreed that the petitioner failed to show his work had a significant impact or influence on the field as of the filing date. The single published citation was in an aggregate citation alongside seven others dating back to 1993; the most-downloaded article evidence reflected recency rather than significance; student thesis citations and email requests for papers were not persuasive evidence of impact; and witness let…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The AAO agreed that the petitioner failed to show his work had a significant impact or influence on the field as of the filing date. The single published citation was in an aggregate citation alongside seven others dating back to 1993; the most-downloaded article evidence reflected recency rather than significance; student thesis citations and email requests for papers were not persuasive evidence of impact; and witness letters were largely from those with personal connections to the petitioner and spoke of potential rather than realized influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_01_B5203; source_row=15138 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other20 papers
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO implicitly accepted that cochlear implant and hearing loss research has substantial intrinsic merit, as the denial was focused on the third prong rather than disputing merit of the research area.
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 +
The AAO implicitly accepted that cochlear implant and hearing loss research has substantial intrinsic merit, as the denial was focused on the third prong rather than disputing merit of the research area.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_01_B5203; source_row=15136 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original scientific contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the petitioner satisfied the original-contributions criterion, supported by reference letters from independent experts detailing how the petitioner's contributions have influenced and are being utilized in the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner satisfied the original-contributions criterion, supported by reference letters from independent experts detailing how the petitioner's contributions have influenced and are being utilized in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_04_B2203; source_row=15156 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO included (iv) among the three criteria the petitioner satisfied; in the final merits discussion AAO notes the petitioner has judged the work of others in his field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO included (iv) among the three criteria the petitioner satisfied; in the final merits discussion AAO notes the petitioner has judged the work of others in his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_04_B2203; source_row=15155 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO disagreed with the director's conclusion that sustained acclaim was lacking and found by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is within the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the director's conclusion that sustained acclaim was lacking and found by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is within the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-09_04_B2203; source_row=15158 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c