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 · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO conducted a comprehensive review and agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's record — including limited and undistinguished peer review activities, modest citation counts without comparative context, inconclusive download data, unsubstantiated claims about ADS inclusion, and reference letters that fell short of establishing top-of-field recognition — did not collectively establish sustained national or internatio…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO conducted a comprehensive review and agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's record — including limited and undistinguished peer review activities, modest citation counts without comparative context, inconclusive download data, unsubstantiated claims about ADS inclusion, and reference letters that fell short of establishing top-of-field recognition — did not collectively establish sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-17_02_B2203; source_row=37686 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
Substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the evidence did not establish national importance because it consisted primarily of general industry articles without specifics about the Petitioner's methodologies or broader impact, the expert letter lacked specifics about how the benefit would extend beyond the Petitioner's own clients, and the business plan's economic projections were insufficiently detailed and unsupported by corroborating evidence.
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 evidence did not establish national importance because it consisted primarily of general industry articles without specifics about the Petitioner's methodologies or broader impact, the expert letter lacked specifics about how the benefit would extend beyond the Petitioner's own clients, and the business plan's economic projections were insufficiently detailed and unsupported by corroborating evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_09_B5203; source_row=37669 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found the Petitioner failed to show its potential impact beyond his own business, employees, and clients. The five-year projections of $2.1 million in revenue and 48 employees did not demonstrate a national-level economic effect, the HUBZone argument was unsupported, and the expert opinion did not show how the specific venture would affect the economy or 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 agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but found the Petitioner failed to show its potential impact beyond his own business, employees, and clients. The five-year projections of $2.1 million in revenue and 48 employees did not demonstrate a national-level economic effect, the HUBZone argument was unsupported, and the expert opinion did not show how the specific venture would affect the economy or field on a national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_07_B5203; source_row=37661 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to identify the author of the online news article as required, did not document the radio interviews sufficiently, and that major media articles about events she organized were not specifically about the Petitioner or her work.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to identify the author of the online news article as required, did not document the radio interviews sufficiently, and that major media articles about events she organized were not specifically about the Petitioner or her work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_01_B2203; source_row=37631 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the employer letters do not establish the awarding organization's intent to recognize the Petitioner individually, and the record lacked objective evidence that the BAPRA awards are nationally or internationally recognized.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the employer letters do not establish the awarding organization's intent to recognize the Petitioner individually, and the record lacked objective evidence that the BAPRA awards are nationally or internationally recognized.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_01_B2203; source_row=37629 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the BPRA letter and bylaws do not sufficiently establish requirements for outstanding achievements or how such achievements are evaluated. The other organizations also failed to demonstrate they require outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the BPRA letter and bylaws do not sufficiently establish requirements for outstanding achievements or how such achievements are evaluated. The other organizations also failed to demonstrate they require outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_01_B2203; source_row=37630 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to show her specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications in her field or generate substantial positive economic effects rising to national importance. While the endeavor has substantial merit, the submitted documentation — including general industry articles and support letters — does not show that her consulting company's work would impact her industry or the U.S.…
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 failed to show her specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications in her field or generate substantial positive economic effects rising to national importance. While the endeavor has substantial merit, the submitted documentation — including general industry articles and support letters — does not show that her consulting company's work would impact her industry or the U.S. economy beyond her company and its direct clientele.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_06_B5203; source_row=37657 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO adopted the Director's analysis and further found the business plan lacked specific data to support projections on job creation and revenue, and the Petitioner did not adequately describe the scope or broader impact of his endeavor at a level commensurate with 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 the Director's analysis and further found the business plan lacked specific data to support projections on job creation and revenue, and the Petitioner did not adequately describe the scope or broader impact of his endeavor at a level commensurate with national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-16_02_B5203; source_row=37642 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c