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 23121–23130
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Social Sciences1,986 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The reference letters praise the petitioner's teaching skills but fail to explain how her contributions are original or provide specific examples of major significance. Evidence of influence is limited to her school and municipality. Letters that merely repeat statutory language or offer conclusory assertions do not satisfy the burden of proof.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The reference letters praise the petitioner's teaching skills but fail to explain how her contributions are original or provide specific examples of major significance. Evidence of influence is limited to her school and municipality. Letters that merely repeat statutory language or offer conclusory assertions do not satisfy the burden of proof.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_02_B2203; source_row=14472 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
national interest served to substantially greater degree than U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
Counsel's arguments about pharmacists generally amounted to a request for a blanket waiver for all pharmacists, which USCIS will not create absent statutory authority. The petitioner's specific contributions during training were limited to data collection during a student rotation and did not demonstrate that he would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
Counsel's arguments about pharmacists generally amounted to a request for a blanket waiver for all pharmacists, which USCIS will not create absent statutory authority. The petitioner's specific contributions during training were limited to data collection during a student rotation and did not demonstrate that he would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_04_B5203; source_row=14485 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that while the petitioner held an M.Ed. at filing, that degree was in mathematics education, not pharmacy. Because pharmacy customarily requires a doctorate, and the petitioner earned his Pharm.D. only in May 2011 — more than eight months after filing — he did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that while the petitioner held an M.Ed. at filing, that degree was in mathematics education, not pharmacy. Because pharmacy customarily requires a doctorate, and the petitioner earned his Pharm.D. only in May 2011 — more than eight months after filing — he did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_04_B5203; source_row=14482 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that counsel's arguments about pharmacists applied generically to all pharmacists and effectively sought an unauthorized blanket waiver. The petitioner's research was conducted as a student, not as a practicing pharmacist, and no showing was made that individual contributions had national impact.
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 that counsel's arguments about pharmacists applied generically to all pharmacists and effectively sought an unauthorized blanket waiver. The petitioner's research was conducted as a student, not as a practicing pharmacist, and no showing was made that individual contributions had national impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_03_B5203; source_row=14480 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
serves the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO finds the petitioner relies on general witness letters rather than first-hand documentary evidence of impact, that claims of citation rarity are unsupported, that participation in conferences and government-funded research is not itself a mark of distinction, and that worker-shortage arguments are arguments for obtaining rather than waiving labor certification.…
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the petitioner relies on general witness letters rather than first-hand documentary evidence of impact, that claims of citation rarity are unsupported, that participation in conferences and government-funded research is not itself a mark of distinction, and that worker-shortage arguments are arguments for obtaining rather than waiving labor certification. AAO also notes the petitioner's apparent departure from the role that originally underpinned the waiver claim and the absence of evidence of comparable subsequent influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_02_B5203; source_row=14476 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the national scope of the pharmacy field as a whole does not establish that this individual petitioner's work has national scope. The petitioner's hospital-based contributions during training were limited to one institution and there was no evidence other institutions adopted his procedures.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the national scope of the pharmacy field as a whole does not establish that this individual petitioner's work has national scope. The petitioner's hospital-based contributions during training were limited to one institution and there was no evidence other institutions adopted his procedures.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_04_B5203; source_row=14484 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social SciencesPhysician
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the petitioner's existing work had not significantly distinguished him from others in the same specialty. His book was published by what appeared to be a vanity press, letters from references only praised potential rather than demonstrating actual impact, citation evidence was absent, and claims about the significance of his work lacked credible evidentiary support.
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 that the petitioner's existing work had not significantly distinguished him from others in the same specialty. His book was published by what appeared to be a vanity press, letters from references only praised potential rather than demonstrating actual impact, citation evidence was absent, and claims about the significance of his work lacked credible evidentiary support.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-05-17_06_B5203; source_row=14489 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c