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 24231–24240
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why AAO was not persuaded
Prong-level analysis is not recoverable from the heavily redacted decision text; the overall NIW finding was resolved against the petitioner.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
Prong-level analysis is not recoverable from the heavily redacted decision text; the overall NIW finding was resolved against the petitioner.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_01_B5203; source_row=13216 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why AAO was not persuaded
The decision text is heavily redacted in the relevant portions, but the overall conclusion is that the petitioner did not establish the national interest waiver criteria under NYSDOT. The prong-level analysis is not recoverable from the available text.
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 decision text is heavily redacted in the relevant portions, but the overall conclusion is that the petitioner did not establish the national interest waiver criteria under NYSDOT. The prong-level analysis is not recoverable from the available text.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_01_B5203; source_row=13215 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary meets the plain language of the awards criterion and withdrew the director's findings.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary meets the plain language of the awards criterion and withdrew the director's findings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-29_02_B2203; source_row=13218 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The travel grant was issued to help finance conference attendance based on an unidentified poster abstract, and the petitioner did not establish it was awarded based on excellence in the field. Additionally, the criterion requires multiple awards (plural), and a single travel grant cannot satisfy it.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The travel grant was issued to help finance conference attendance based on an unidentified poster abstract, and the petitioner did not establish it was awarded based on excellence in the field. Additionally, the criterion requires multiple awards (plural), and a single travel grant cannot satisfy it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-28_03_B2203; source_row=13198 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 petitioner's patent applications lack demonstrated impact (the license expired with no sales), citation rates for articles are only moderate and do not show major significance, and the expert letters are largely from collaborators who fail to identify specific, tangible effects on the field. The petitioner has made original contributions but not of 'major significance' as required.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner's patent applications lack demonstrated impact (the license expired with no sales), citation rates for articles are only moderate and do not show major significance, and the expert letters are largely from collaborators who fail to identify specific, tangible effects on the field. The petitioner has made original contributions but not of 'major significance' as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-28_03_B2203; source_row=13202 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
Three of the four articles are review articles that merely cite the petitioner's work in a footnote among many other citations; they are about the field, not about the petitioner. The fourth article appears in a magazine whose status as a major trade publication was not established.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Three of the four articles are review articles that merely cite the petitioner's work in a footnote among many other citations; they are about the field, not about the petitioner. The fourth article appears in a magazine whose status as a major trade publication was not established.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-28_03_B2203; source_row=13200 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO conducted a final merits determination and found that the totality of the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field. The petitioner's accomplishments, compared with those of his own references, show he has not reached the highest echelon of his field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO conducted a final merits determination and found that the totality of the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field. The petitioner's accomplishments, compared with those of his own references, show he has not reached the highest echelon of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-28_03_B2203; source_row=13204 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The organization's bylaws require only a 'noteworthy' achievement, which is not equivalent to the 'outstanding' achievement required by the regulation. The petitioner also provided no evidence that admittance is judged by recognized national or international experts. Furthermore, membership in a single association with nearly 60,000 members cannot satisfy the plural requirement of the criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The organization's bylaws require only a 'noteworthy' achievement, which is not equivalent to the 'outstanding' achievement required by the regulation. The petitioner also provided no evidence that admittance is judged by recognized national or international experts. Furthermore, membership in a single association with nearly 60,000 members cannot satisfy the plural requirement of the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2011-09-28_03_B2203; source_row=13199 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c