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.
AAO noted SCOPS failed to evaluate whether trade-show presentations were comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) and remanded for that consideration.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted SCOPS failed to evaluate whether trade-show presentations were comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) and remanded for that consideration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-02-02_01_B2203; source_row=44770 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
What the decision said
AAO noted SCOPS failed to evaluate whether highly valued equity holdings in the Petitioner's start-up were comparable evidence to high salary, and remanded for that consideration.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted SCOPS failed to evaluate whether highly valued equity holdings in the Petitioner's start-up were comparable evidence to high salary, and remanded for that consideration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-02-02_01_B2203; source_row=44772 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences145 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding on national importance, concluding that the Petitioner's research in biological engineering—including drug delivery systems advancing a critical and emerging technology field—demonstrated both substantial merit and national importance, noting USCIS recognizes the importance of STEM progress in critical and emerging technologies.…
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 SCOPS' finding on national importance, concluding that the Petitioner's research in biological engineering—including drug delivery systems advancing a critical and emerging technology field—demonstrated both substantial merit and national importance, noting USCIS recognizes the importance of STEM progress in critical and emerging technologies. AAO did note, however, that the Petitioner's work as a formulation scientist at his employer alone would not rise to national importance as its benefits would not result in broader implications beyond the employer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-02-02_02_B5203; source_row=44776 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIEngineer948 citations
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the petitioner's AI research endeavor demonstrated both substantial merit and national importance based on peer-reviewed publications, citation records, expert letters, and USCIS recognition of critical and emerging technology fields. However, AAO noted that the petitioner's employment duties at his employer do not independently rise to 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 found the petitioner's AI research endeavor demonstrated both substantial merit and national importance based on peer-reviewed publications, citation records, expert letters, and USCIS recognition of critical and emerging technology fields. However, AAO noted that the petitioner's employment duties at his employer do not independently rise to national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-02-02_04_B5203; source_row=44782 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c