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.
While AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director improperly imposed an extra-regulatory requirement that judging must occur outside the job, the Petitioner still failed to address the Director's separate finding that the Beneficiary's work did not amount to judging the work of others in the field. That unaddressed basis was abandoned both in the RFE response and on appeal.…
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
While AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director improperly imposed an extra-regulatory requirement that judging must occur outside the job, the Petitioner still failed to address the Director's separate finding that the Beneficiary's work did not amount to judging the work of others in the field. That unaddressed basis was abandoned both in the RFE response and on appeal. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to submit any actual evidence that the Beneficiary performed the claimed judging functions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_01_B2203; source_row=40242 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner's contributions were confined to the organizations where he worked with no broader field impact, no recognition by government entities or trade journals, insufficient salary comparison evidence, and membership in open professional organizations. The totality of the evidence did not establish expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
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's contributions were confined to the organizations where he worked with no broader field impact, no recognition by government entities or trade journals, insufficient salary comparison evidence, and membership in open professional organizations. The totality of the evidence did not establish expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_10_B5203; source_row=40283 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to demonstrate she is well positioned because she did not address the lack of evidence showing she obtained appropriate licensing and completed the educational requirements to work as a clinical psychologist and counselor in Florida.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to demonstrate she is well positioned because she did not address the lack of evidence showing she obtained appropriate licensing and completed the educational requirements to work as a clinical psychologist and counselor in Florida.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_06_B5203; source_row=40265 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the foreign diploma is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate five years of progressive post-degree experience. The only employer letter showed less than three years of post-degree work, pre-degree internship experience was not qualifying, and it was unclear whether the work was full-time.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the foreign diploma is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate five years of progressive post-degree experience. The only employer letter showed less than three years of post-degree work, pre-degree internship experience was not qualifying, and it was unclear whether the work was full-time.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_11_B5203; source_row=40287 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner established substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner's projections, even if accurate, did not rise to the level of national importance, and his assertions about the broader fields of sales, consulting, and telecommunications lacked probative supporting evidence. AAO noted that benefits to individual clients do not indicate broader field-wide impact.
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 projections, even if accurate, did not rise to the level of national importance, and his assertions about the broader fields of sales, consulting, and telecommunications lacked probative supporting evidence. AAO noted that benefits to individual clients do not indicate broader field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_14_B5203; source_row=40298 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although the AAO reviewed the evidence, the citation counts alone were insufficient to establish major significance to the overall field; the Petitioner did not provide comparative evidence of impact relative to other published works. Reference letters either failed to explain why the contributions were high-profile, repeated statutory language without substance, or were based on admitted lack of personal knowledge.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Although the AAO reviewed the evidence, the citation counts alone were insufficient to establish major significance to the overall field; the Petitioner did not provide comparative evidence of impact relative to other published works. Reference letters either failed to explain why the contributions were high-profile, repeated statutory language without substance, or were based on admitted lack of personal knowledge.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_02_B2203; source_row=40250 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reviewed the entire record in the alternative and found it does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the entire record in the alternative and found it does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_02_B2203; source_row=40254 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was vaguely described with little detail about specific planned activities or projects. The industry evidence submitted does not reference the Petitioner or his work and therefore does not establish national importance at a sufficient 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 that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was vaguely described with little detail about specific planned activities or projects. The industry evidence submitted does not reference the Petitioner or his work and therefore does not establish national importance at a sufficient level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_01_B5203; source_row=40245 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
on balance, beneficial to waive the job offer requirement
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that on balance it would not be beneficial to waive the job offer requirement, given the Petitioner's failure to adequately articulate his proposed endeavor.
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 that on balance it would not be beneficial to waive the job offer requirement, given the Petitioner's failure to adequately articulate his proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_01_B5203; source_row=40247 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner had not demonstrated he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, particularly given the failure to adequately articulate what the endeavor is and how he plans to accomplish it.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner had not demonstrated he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, particularly given the failure to adequately articulate what the endeavor is and how he plans to accomplish it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_01_B5203; source_row=40246 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c