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 2301–2310
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
commanding a salary demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's salary evidence, including pay records, a complimentary employer letter, and third-party salary reports from payscale.com and salary explorer, failed to demonstrate that her remuneration was indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in her field. The salary comparison data was based on different job titles, unclear geographic coverage, or did not address her specific role.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's salary evidence, including pay records, a complimentary employer letter, and third-party salary reports from payscale.com and salary explorer, failed to demonstrate that her remuneration was indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in her field. The salary comparison data was based on different job titles, unclear geographic coverage, or did not address her specific role.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-05_03_B5203; source_row=41640 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to show a record of success or progress in advancing his own proposed entrepreneurial endeavor as of the January 2021 filing date. Evidence of D-P-C-'s research funding, the co-authored manuscript, the invention disclosure assigning rights to their employer, and the provisional patent application all either related to D-P-C-'s work rather than the Petitioner's endeavor, or post-dated the filing and cou…
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to show a record of success or progress in advancing his own proposed entrepreneurial endeavor as of the January 2021 filing date. Evidence of D-P-C-'s research funding, the co-authored manuscript, the invention disclosure assigning rights to their employer, and the provisional patent application all either related to D-P-C-'s work rather than the Petitioner's endeavor, or post-dated the filing and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-05_01_B5203; source_row=41632 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the industry reports and discussion of sustainable techniques addressed the importance of the field rather than the specific proposed endeavor, and that the business plan's projection of 17 full-time employees over five years and a $50,000 initial investment from a partner did not sufficiently demonstrate national or global implications or significant potential to employ U.S.…
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 found that the industry reports and discussion of sustainable techniques addressed the importance of the field rather than the specific proposed endeavor, and that the business plan's projection of 17 full-time employees over five years and a $50,000 initial investment from a partner did not sufficiently demonstrate national or global implications or significant potential to employ U.S. workers or produce substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-05_02_B5203; source_row=41634 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's appeal letter did not address the Director's specific adverse findings about the publications' limited reach and demise, and therefore the Petitioner failed to overcome the Director's determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's appeal letter did not address the Director's specific adverse findings about the publications' limited reach and demise, and therefore the Petitioner failed to overcome the Director's determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-05_01_B2203; source_row=41627 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because the Petitioner could not satisfy three criteria even if criterion (iv) were resolved in his favor, AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary to reach.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner could not satisfy three criteria even if criterion (iv) were resolved in his favor, AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary to reach.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-05_01_B2203; source_row=41628 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c