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.
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner could only satisfy one criterion (judging) and thus could not reach the threshold of three regardless of the outcome of the high salary criterion, AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary to the ultimate decision under Bagamasbad.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner could only satisfy one criterion (judging) and thus could not reach the threshold of three regardless of the outcome of the high salary criterion, AAO reserved this issue as unnecessary to the ultimate decision under Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_01_B2203; source_row=45250 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The recommendation letters focused on the Petitioner's responsibilities as an ESL instructor and curriculum team member but made only brief, general claims about her role being significant. They did not provide specific, detailed information about the effect of her role or establish that she performed in a leadership capacity or contributed in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of the organization.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters focused on the Petitioner's responsibilities as an ESL instructor and curriculum team member but made only brief, general claims about her role being significant. They did not provide specific, detailed information about the effect of her role or establish that she performed in a leadership capacity or contributed in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of the organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_01_B2203; source_row=45249 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO finds the Petitioner performed in a leading and critical role as co-founder and CEO of the Company, which created an AI auditing platform. The Company qualifies as having a distinguished reputation under the Policy Manual's startup guidance because it received $2.1 million total funding ($1.6 million in venture capital), commensurate with typical early-stage funding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO finds the Petitioner performed in a leading and critical role as co-founder and CEO of the Company, which created an AI auditing platform. The Company qualifies as having a distinguished reputation under the Policy Manual's startup guidance because it received $2.1 million total funding ($1.6 million in venture capital), commensurate with typical early-stage funding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-30_03_B2203; source_row=45269 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor description insufficiently detailed and lacking specific evidence of broader national impact. Evidence from colleagues and letters mainly addressed the Petitioner's skills and background (relevant to prong 2) rather than the national importance of the 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 found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor description insufficiently detailed and lacking specific evidence of broader national impact. Evidence from colleagues and letters mainly addressed the Petitioner's skills and background (relevant to prong 2) rather than the national importance of the specific endeavor. General industry importance and alignment with national policies do not substitute for demonstrating the specific endeavor's national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-26_01_B5203; source_row=45233 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters describe the Petitioner's employment and responsibilities but do not show how his roles differentiated him from other engineers or technical program managers. Performing routine duties of a technical program manager, even if noteworthy, does not equate to a leading or critical role. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to establish that his former employer (the planetarium) had a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters describe the Petitioner's employment and responsibilities but do not show how his roles differentiated him from other engineers or technical program managers. Performing routine duties of a technical program manager, even if noteworthy, does not equate to a leading or critical role. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to establish that his former employer (the planetarium) had a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-26_02_B2203; source_row=45239 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The BLS data covers all computer occupations, which is too broad a comparison group and may include significantly lower-paying positions. The Petitioner's total compensation includes bonuses and equity grants that are not salary, making direct comparison to salary data misleading.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The BLS data covers all computer occupations, which is too broad a comparison group and may include significantly lower-paying positions. The Petitioner's total compensation includes bonuses and equity grants that are not salary, making direct comparison to salary data misleading. The ZipRecruiter data is from an unknown year and reflects average rather than high-end salaries, failing to show the Petitioner's remuneration is high relative to similarly situated peers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-26_02_B2203; source_row=45240 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not demonstrate how his planetarium work constituted an original contribution in the field of technical infrastructure and responsible AI deployment. His published article lacks evidence of citation or influence by others, and his conference presentation has not been shown to have significantly impacted the field.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not demonstrate how his planetarium work constituted an original contribution in the field of technical infrastructure and responsible AI deployment. His published article lacks evidence of citation or influence by others, and his conference presentation has not been shown to have significantly impacted the field. Reference letters asserting significance were not corroborated by independent documentary evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-26_02_B2203; source_row=45238 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
The IETE fellowship requirements are based on age, academic qualifications, occupation, and experience—not outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts. The MEM Advisory Board lacked submitted bylaws or other sufficient evidence of its membership requirements.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The IETE fellowship requirements are based on age, academic qualifications, occupation, and experience—not outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts. The MEM Advisory Board lacked submitted bylaws or other sufficient evidence of its membership requirements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-26_02_B2203; source_row=45236 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material about the alien in professional or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted articles do not mention the Petitioner's name or his work and are not 'about' the Petitioner relating to his work. The regulation requires published material about the petitioner, not merely about a product or project he may have contributed to.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted articles do not mention the Petitioner's name or his work and are not 'about' the Petitioner relating to his work. The regulation requires published material about the petitioner, not merely about a product or project he may have contributed to.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-26_02_B2203; source_row=45237 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c