Source-backed decision research

Explore how AAO evaluates evidence.

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.

Clear filters

10,847 decisions / 36,849 findings

Showing 27712780

EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established

Case facts

Medicine / ClinicalPhD10 papers

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Leading / critical role

leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO disagreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show a leading or critical role—finding her co-founding, management, and development of automated systems established both—but affirmed denial because the record lacked sufficient evidence that the clinic has a distinguished reputation.

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 that the Petitioner failed to show a leading or critical role—finding her co-founding, management, and development of automated systems established both—but affirmed denial because the record lacked sufficient evidence that the clinic has a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_01_B2203; source_row=40848
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established

Case facts

Medicine / ClinicalPhD10 papers

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Original contributions

original contributions of major significance

Why AAO was not persuaded

While AAO agreed the director wrongly excluded five letters under an inapplicable regulation, AAO found the record still failed to show major significance: only 1–5% of dentists use osteopathic methods and the extent of use of the modified ALF devices was not established; similarly, the pre-surgical protocol research lacked evidence of widespread citations or commentary.

Why this is useful

Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.

View full reasoning +
While AAO agreed the director wrongly excluded five letters under an inapplicable regulation, AAO found the record still failed to show major significance: only 1–5% of dentists use osteopathic methods and the extent of use of the modified ALF devices was not established; similarly, the pre-surgical protocol research lacked evidence of widespread citations or commentary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_01_B2203; source_row=40845
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · MembershipNot established

Case facts

Medicine / ClinicalPhD10 papers

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Membership

membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements

Why AAO was not persuaded

The ICCMO bylaws did not demonstrate that fellowship requires 'outstanding achievements.' For the Russian society, a discrepancy between the stated membership date (2006) and the date the Petitioner obtained her orthodontics license (2008) cast doubt on the president's stated membership criteria requiring outstanding achievements.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
The ICCMO bylaws did not demonstrate that fellowship requires 'outstanding achievements.' For the Russian society, a discrepancy between the stated membership date (2006) and the date the Petitioner obtained her orthodontics license (2008) cast doubt on the president's stated membership criteria requiring outstanding achievements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_01_B2203; source_row=40843
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · AwardsNot established

Case facts

Medicine / ClinicalPhD10 papers

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Awards

lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards

Why AAO was not persuaded

The evidence of national and international awards did not indicate their number of awardees, national or international significance, or how a larger audience viewed the awards. The Petitioner's unsupported assertions on appeal were insufficient.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
The evidence of national and international awards did not indicate their number of awardees, national or international significance, or how a larger audience viewed the awards. The Petitioner's unsupported assertions on appeal were insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_01_B2203; source_row=40842
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established

Case facts

Chemistry / Chemical EngineeringResearch Scientist

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found the Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor, presenting instead three divergent research areas without clarity on future plans. The recommendation letters addressed past and current work without discussing a future endeavor of broad national impact. The NSF funding was not shown to equate to national importance, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate he was the principal investigator.…

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 the Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor, presenting instead three divergent research areas without clarity on future plans. The recommendation letters addressed past and current work without discussing a future endeavor of broad national impact. The NSF funding was not shown to equate to national importance, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate he was the principal investigator. Generalized claims of novelty and peer recognition did not establish a sufficiently direct connection between his research and broad impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_03_B5203; source_row=40861
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor unclear and insufficiently detailed. She did not specify how she would execute her plans (e.g., own company, consultant, or employee), did not identify specific clients or partners, and provided no operational plan, timeline, or business metrics.…

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 the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor unclear and insufficiently detailed. She did not specify how she would execute her plans (e.g., own company, consultant, or employee), did not identify specific clients or partners, and provided no operational plan, timeline, or business metrics. Evidence of her skills and work history addressed the second prong but did not establish the national importance of a specific endeavor under the first prong.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_04_B5203; source_row=40864
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot established

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

NIW · Well positioned

well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found that while the Petitioner demonstrated accomplishments as an optometrist and sales representative in Colombia, her evidence did not address key components of her proposed endeavor: she lacked U.S. licensure, provided no specific plan or evidence of progress toward establishing clinics in underserved areas, and did not demonstrate research activity or a citation history beyond her degree thesis.…

Why this is useful

Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.

View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the Petitioner demonstrated accomplishments as an optometrist and sales representative in Colombia, her evidence did not address key components of her proposed endeavor: she lacked U.S. licensure, provided no specific plan or evidence of progress toward establishing clinics in underserved areas, and did not demonstrate research activity or a citation history beyond her degree thesis. Her future plan lacked specificity regarding research and clinic establishment steps.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_08_B5203; source_row=40882
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AI

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO concluded the Petitioner did not adequately describe the specific endeavor or its prospective national importance; recommendation letters described past contributions rather than future plans, funding claims were not documented, and post-doctoral employment plans were unspecified.

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 concluded the Petitioner did not adequately describe the specific endeavor or its prospective national importance; recommendation letters described past contributions rather than future plans, funding claims were not documented, and post-doctoral employment plans were unspecified.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_07_B5203; source_row=40878
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established

Case facts

Electrical / Electronic Engineering

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. The implications of the endeavor were limited to the Petitioner, his company, his clients, and four prospective employees. Industry reports emphasized the general importance of electrical engineering but did not demonstrate the potential impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.…

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. The implications of the endeavor were limited to the Petitioner, his company, his clients, and four prospective employees. Industry reports emphasized the general importance of electrical engineering but did not demonstrate the potential impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Merely working in an important field is insufficient without evidence of the endeavor's potential prospective impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_02_B5203; source_row=40858
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot established

Case facts

Computer Science / AIPhD327 citations

Issue evaluated

NIW · Waiver on balance

on balance, beneficial to waive job offer and labor certification

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director failed to adequately analyze the balancing factors of the third prong, citing the requirement that officers fully explain specific reasons for denying a petition. AAO remanded for re-evaluation in light of the revised analysis of the first two prongs.

Why this is useful

See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director failed to adequately analyze the balancing factors of the third prong, citing the requirement that officers fully explain specific reasons for denying a petition. AAO remanded for re-evaluation in light of the revised analysis of the first two prongs.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-09-20_06_B5203; source_row=40877
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
Back to assessment