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 3161–3170
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The soup.io article was not previously submitted and could not be considered for the first time on appeal. For the inspirationfeed.com article, USCIS need not rely on the publisher's self-promotional readership claims, and the Petitioner failed to provide comparative evidence of the website's viewership relative to others of its type.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The soup.io article was not previously submitted and could not be considered for the first time on appeal. For the inspirationfeed.com article, USCIS need not rely on the publisher's self-promotional readership claims, and the Petitioner failed to provide comparative evidence of the website's viewership relative to others of its type.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-26_02_B2203; source_row=40248 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
The AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to show national importance because his work would not extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly. The letters from employers and an expert praised his skills but did not demonstrate the broader prospective impact of his proposed endeavor on the field.
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 +
The AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to show national importance because his work would not extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly. The letters from employers and an expert praised his skills but did not demonstrate the broader prospective impact of his proposed endeavor on the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_07_B5203; source_row=40239 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the Director's substantial merit determination based on the detailed business plan and supporting articles, but agreed the petitioner failed to establish national importance because her consulting work would not extend beyond individual clients to broadly impact the accounting field.
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 withdrew the Director's substantial merit determination based on the detailed business plan and supporting articles, but agreed the petitioner failed to establish national importance because her consulting work would not extend beyond individual clients to broadly impact the accounting field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_02_B5203; source_row=40222 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, finding the business plan unsupported by corroborating evidence and the claimed indirect impacts and broader industry effects unsubstantiated.
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 endeavor has substantial merit but lacks national importance, finding the business plan unsupported by corroborating evidence and the claimed indirect impacts and broader industry effects unsubstantiated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_03_B5203; source_row=40225 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to provide documentation showing his earnings are indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in the field, offering only a bare income tax return without comparative evidence.
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 provide documentation showing his earnings are indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in the field, offering only a bare income tax return without comparative evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_01_B5203; source_row=40213 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other14 papers58 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that 58 citations and journal impact factor alone do not demonstrate major significance, the Petitioner's unsupported claims about being in the top 2 percentile lacked probative evidence, the self-compiled list of notable citations could not be assessed without the actual articles, and the published commentary about his 2015 article acknowledged only novelty and need for further study rather than a demonstrated ma…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that 58 citations and journal impact factor alone do not demonstrate major significance, the Petitioner's unsupported claims about being in the top 2 percentile lacked probative evidence, the self-compiled list of notable citations could not be assessed without the actual articles, and the published commentary about his 2015 article acknowledged only novelty and need for further study rather than a demonstrated major impact on clinical practice. The Petitioner's own assertions about changing treatment protocols were not corroborated by independent objective evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_01_B2203; source_row=40207 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that while the Petitioner holds a relevant Ph.D. (an especially positive factor), most citations were self-citations or co-author citations with limited independent citations; peer review participation was not shown to be a record of success; no government funding was demonstrated; no evidence of interest from prospective U.S.…
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 holds a relevant Ph.D. (an especially positive factor), most citations were self-citations or co-author citations with limited independent citations; peer review participation was not shown to be a record of success; no government funding was demonstrated; no evidence of interest from prospective U.S. employers was submitted; and recommendation letters offered only general praise without specific examples of influence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_05_B5203; source_row=40234 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's analysis, finding the Petitioner's proposed startup incubator advising did not extend sufficiently beyond his direct clientele to impact broader fields at the level of national importance.…
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's analysis, finding the Petitioner's proposed startup incubator advising did not extend sufficiently beyond his direct clientele to impact broader fields at the level of national importance. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate significant economic employment potential or substantial positive economic effects, and evidence about unrelated entities' financial performance was insufficient to demonstrate national-level impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_06_B5203; source_row=40236 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO finds the Petitioner conflates her qualifications (a prong-2 inquiry) with the prong-1 inquiry into the endeavor's prospective impact. The staffing projections lack evidence-based justification, the claimed indirect jobs are unsupported, and the financial projections lack corroboration and do not show substantial positive economic impact at a national-importance 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 finds the Petitioner conflates her qualifications (a prong-2 inquiry) with the prong-1 inquiry into the endeavor's prospective impact. The staffing projections lack evidence-based justification, the claimed indirect jobs are unsupported, and the financial projections lack corroboration and do not show substantial positive economic impact at a national-importance level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-23_04_B5203; source_row=40230 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c