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 30413050

EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot established

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Published material

published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media

Why AAO was not persuaded

While AAO acknowledged the Director overlooked the submitted transcripts, it found the criterion still not met: the Business Life article appeared to be written by the Petitioner rather than being about him, and the television appearances lacked required dates, broadcaster identification, and evidence of major media status.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
While AAO acknowledged the Director overlooked the submitted transcripts, it found the criterion still not met: the Business Life article appeared to be written by the Petitioner rather than being about him, and the television appearances lacked required dates, broadcaster identification, and evidence of major media status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_02_B2203; source_row=40417
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 agreed the Petitioner established substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner's evidence focused on the IT industry broadly and his own qualifications, not on the specific broader implications of his proposed endeavor. His business plan's revenue and employment projections were unsubstantiated and insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects at a national level.

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 Petitioner established substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner's evidence focused on the IT industry broadly and his own qualifications, not on the specific broader implications of his proposed endeavor. His business plan's revenue and employment projections were unsubstantiated and insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects at a national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_05_B5203; source_row=40433
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Final merits

final merits determination of exceptional ability

Why AAO was not persuaded

Even setting aside the criterion findings, the totality of the record does not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the hospitality field; the letters and credentials are unpersuasive of exceptional ability.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
Even setting aside the criterion findings, the totality of the record does not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the hospitality field; the letters and credentials are unpersuasive of exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_06_B5203; source_row=40440
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · High remuneration

salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO withdraws the Director's determination because the plain language requires that the salary itself demonstrate exceptional ability, and Petitioner's salary was below the median for hospitality managers; recognition by peers and association memberships are not relevant to this inquiry.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
AAO withdraws the Director's determination because the plain language requires that the salary itself demonstrate exceptional ability, and Petitioner's salary was below the median for hospitality managers; recognition by peers and association memberships are not relevant to this inquiry.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_06_B5203; source_row=40437
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established

Case facts

Biomedical / Life Sciences

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Leading / critical role

leading or critical role

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to meet this criterion. For the postdoctoral fellow role, the Petitioner herself described it as a trainee/support position with no detailed corroborating letter.…

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to meet this criterion. For the postdoctoral fellow role, the Petitioner herself described it as a trainee/support position with no detailed corroborating letter. For the senior research associate role, the submitted documents showed supervisory duties but lacked detailed and probative information from someone with personal knowledge of how her role was leading or critical.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=40413
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot established

Case facts

Biomedical / Life Sciences

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · High remuneration

high salary or remuneration

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found that even after considering the additional evidence, the Petitioner only demonstrated an above-average salary rather than a high salary. The NIH and New Scientist data was too narrow, LCA prevailing wage data was entry-level and not useful for comparison, and the Salary.com data showed her salary was close to the average rather than the high end.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
AAO found that even after considering the additional evidence, the Petitioner only demonstrated an above-average salary rather than a high salary. The NIH and New Scientist data was too narrow, LCA prevailing wage data was entry-level and not useful for comparison, and the Salary.com data showed her salary was close to the average rather than the high end.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=40414
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Finance

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO's prior decision found the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and the motion to reconsider did not identify any specific error in that analysis.

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's prior decision found the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and the motion to reconsider did not identify any specific error in that analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_09_B5203; source_row=40447
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Finance

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO found that the anticipated job creation (68 direct and 88 indirect jobs) does not rise to the level of 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' contemplated by Dhanasar, that the indirect job claims lack supporting detail, that the alignment with federal initiatives was unsubstantiated, that no critical gap in financial services was established, and that the accounting services described are routine without nation…

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 anticipated job creation (68 direct and 88 indirect jobs) does not rise to the level of 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' contemplated by Dhanasar, that the indirect job claims lack supporting detail, that the alignment with federal initiatives was unsubstantiated, that no critical gap in financial services was established, and that the accounting services described are routine without national or global implications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_03_B5203; source_row=40428
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Social Sciences

Issue evaluated

procedural or other

motion to reconsider requirements

Why AAO was not persuaded

Petitioner failed to identify a specific legal or policy error in the prior AAO decision; merely reiterated disagreement and introduced a new proposed endeavor not previously in the record.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
Petitioner failed to identify a specific legal or policy error in the prior AAO decision; merely reiterated disagreement and introduced a new proposed endeavor not previously in the record.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_02_B5203; source_row=40422
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWotherEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

other

Schedule A notice of filing posting requirement

Why the evidence was persuasive

AAO found the appeal evidence sufficient to establish that the notice was properly posted in compliance with the regulation.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
AAO found the appeal evidence sufficient to establish that the notice was properly posted in compliance with the regulation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_04_B5203; source_row=40431
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
Back to assessment