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 2661–2670
EB-1AEB-1A · AwardsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesMaster’s48 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Awards
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the record supports that the Petitioner received a poster award at the 2015 EAACI Annual Congress, it lacks primary evidence identifying the specific award or the criteria for granting it. The Petitioner's description suggests the award was in a category limited to early-career professionals, and without objective evidence of the specific award and criteria, the criterion is not met.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
While the record supports that the Petitioner received a poster award at the 2015 EAACI Annual Congress, it lacks primary evidence identifying the specific award or the criteria for granting it. The Petitioner's description suggests the award was in a category limited to early-career professionals, and without objective evidence of the specific award and criteria, the criterion is not met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_01_B2203; source_row=41027 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Biomedical / Life SciencesMaster’s48 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the Petitioner is a productive researcher whose work has been cited, she did not provide comparative citation evidence showing her citation rates are unusually high, the journal impact factor does not reflect individual article significance, the review article citations acknowledge 'new knowledge' but not major significance, and the expert letters lacked specificity about how her contributions have impacted the wider…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
While the Petitioner is a productive researcher whose work has been cited, she did not provide comparative citation evidence showing her citation rates are unusually high, the journal impact factor does not reflect individual article significance, the review article citations acknowledge 'new knowledge' but not major significance, and the expert letters lacked specificity about how her contributions have impacted the wider field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_01_B2203; source_row=41029 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor primarily in terms of past research without identifying specific new projects, that support letters lacked specific knowledge of the proposed future endeavor, and that industry reports addressed the field generally rather than the petitioner's specific proposed activities. The national importance of the specific proposed endeavor was not established.
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 +
AAO found that the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor primarily in terms of past research without identifying specific new projects, that support letters lacked specific knowledge of the proposed future endeavor, and that industry reports addressed the field generally rather than the petitioner's specific proposed activities. The national importance of the specific proposed endeavor was not established.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_02_B5203; source_row=41036 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the proposed endeavor lacked national importance, finding the Petitioner's general assertions about contributing to a linguistically competent workforce lacked sufficient probative detail and were uncorroborated. The letters and articles did not address the Petitioner's specific plans or their broader implications, and her prior award and publications were not shown to relate to her proposed U.S. research.
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 +
AAO agreed the proposed endeavor lacked national importance, finding the Petitioner's general assertions about contributing to a linguistically competent workforce lacked sufficient probative detail and were uncorroborated. The letters and articles did not address the Petitioner's specific plans or their broader implications, and her prior award and publications were not shown to relate to her proposed U.S. research.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_06_B5203; source_row=41048 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Foreign degree equivalent to U.S. bachelor's degree
Why AAO was not persuaded
The credential evaluation repeatedly concluded only 'three and one-half years of course work' toward a four-year bachelor's degree, not a full equivalent. The evaluator improperly relied on the 'three-for-one' rule, which applies only to H visa requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), not to immigrant employment petitions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The credential evaluation repeatedly concluded only 'three and one-half years of course work' toward a four-year bachelor's degree, not a full equivalent. The evaluator improperly relied on the 'three-for-one' rule, which applies only to H visa requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), not to immigrant employment petitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_05_B5203; source_row=41043 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not address AAO's finding that the letters fail to meet 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) requirements. Only one letter was from a former employer, and it described training completed before the Petitioner obtained her degree in 2018, so it could not establish post-baccalaureate progressive experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not address AAO's finding that the letters fail to meet 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) requirements. Only one letter was from a former employer, and it described training completed before the Petitioner obtained her degree in 2018, so it could not establish post-baccalaureate progressive experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_05_B5203; source_row=41044 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that while the Petitioner met the substantial merit element, she did not show that the prospective impact of her endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The submitted articles address the general importance of nutrition and food consulting as a field, not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, and unsubstantiated claims of economic benefit are insufficient.
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 +
AAO found that while the Petitioner met the substantial merit element, she did not show that the prospective impact of her endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The submitted articles address the general importance of nutrition and food consulting as a field, not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, and unsubstantiated claims of economic benefit are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_05_B5203; source_row=41045 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agrees the Petitioner does not qualify, but on broader grounds: she has not established the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, and even if she had, a DPT is customarily required so she would need the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agrees the Petitioner does not qualify, but on broader grounds: she has not established the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, and even if she had, a DPT is customarily required so she would need the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-27_04_B5203; source_row=41042 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c