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 601610

EB-1AEB-1A · JudgingEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Judging

participation as a judge of the work of others

Why the evidence was persuasive

AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he participated as a judge of the work of others in his field of hospitality technology, and withdrew the director's contrary finding.

Why this is useful

See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.

View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he participated as a judge of the work of others in his field of hospitality technology, and withdrew the director's contrary finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-28_04_B2203; source_row=44392
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Scholarly authorshipEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Scholarly authorship

authorship of scholarly articles in the field in major publications

Why the evidence was persuasive

AAO found the article was authored by the Petitioner for learned persons in his field of technology and hospitality, and that Forbes.com qualifies as a professional publication, satisfying the plain language of the criterion. AAO withdrew the director's contrary determination.

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 found the article was authored by the Petitioner for learned persons in his field of technology and hospitality, and that Forbes.com qualifies as a professional publication, satisfying the plain language of the criterion. AAO withdrew the director's contrary determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-28_04_B2203; source_row=44394
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWrecognitionNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Social Sciences

Issue evaluated

recognition

recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed that the recommendation letters and state registrations praised the Petitioner's dedication and skills but did not identify significant contributions to the industry or field.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the recommendation letters and state registrations praised the Petitioner's dedication and skills but did not identify significant contributions to the industry or field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-28_04_B5203; source_row=44405
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · EB-2 baselineNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Social Sciences

Issue evaluated

NIW · EB-2 baseline

advanced degree professional qualification

What the decision said

Petitioner did not address SCOPS' adverse advanced-degree determination on appeal, so AAO deems the issue waived.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
Petitioner did not address SCOPS' adverse advanced-degree determination on appeal, so AAO deems the issue waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-28_04_B5203; source_row=44399
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Social Sciences

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · High remuneration

high salary or remuneration

What the decision said

Petitioner did not claim or contest this criterion on appeal, so AAO treats it as waived.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
Petitioner did not claim or contest this criterion on appeal, so AAO treats it as waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-28_04_B5203; source_row=44403
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

EB-1A · Final merits

Final merits determination

What the decision said

AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria. AAO noted in an advisory capacity that the record as a whole does not establish the required sustained acclaim.

Why this is useful

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

View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria. AAO noted in an advisory capacity that the record as a whole does not establish the required sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-28_01_B2203; source_row=44371
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 endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance. The industry-level documentation, letters of recommendation discussing job performance, and STEM materials did not speak to the specific prospective impact of the Beneficiary's individual work as a single senior software engineer. The Petitioner's arguments relied on generalizations about the industry rather than the specific proposed endeavor.

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 lacked demonstrated national importance. The industry-level documentation, letters of recommendation discussing job performance, and STEM materials did not speak to the specific prospective impact of the Beneficiary's individual work as a single senior software engineer. The Petitioner's arguments relied on generalizations about the industry rather than the specific proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_03_B5203; source_row=44347
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 that substantial merit was demonstrated but that national importance was not. Evidence of the Petitioner's contributions showed company-specific benefits (e.g., over $1 million in annual revenue growth) rather than broader national or global implications. Letters and expert opinion offered only general conclusions without specific corroboration of national-scale 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 that substantial merit was demonstrated but that national importance was not. Evidence of the Petitioner's contributions showed company-specific benefits (e.g., over $1 million in annual revenue growth) rather than broader national or global implications. Letters and expert opinion offered only general conclusions without specific corroboration of national-scale impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_01_B5203; source_row=44341
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agrees that general assertions and unsupported projections, with letters and articles that do not specifically address the proposed endeavor, fail to demonstrate national importance. The evidence of the Petitioner's background relates to whether she is well-positioned, not to national importance of the endeavor itself.

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 agrees that general assertions and unsupported projections, with letters and articles that do not specifically address the proposed endeavor, fail to demonstrate national importance. The evidence of the Petitioner's background relates to whether she is well-positioned, not to national importance of the endeavor itself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_07_B5203; source_row=44359
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 conceded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit within a recognized field, but found it failed to demonstrate national importance. The Petitioner could not bootstrap his employer's national user base into evidence of his own nationally important contribution, and his broad claims about AI's economic value lacked specific, probative evidentiary support linking his particular work to nationally significant o…

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 conceded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit within a recognized field, but found it failed to demonstrate national importance. The Petitioner could not bootstrap his employer's national user base into evidence of his own nationally important contribution, and his broad claims about AI's economic value lacked specific, probative evidentiary support linking his particular work to nationally significant outcomes.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_02_B5203; source_row=44344
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
Back to assessment