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 61–70
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published materials
Why AAO was not persuaded
One publication lacked a required author; two publications did not mention the Petitioner at all; other publications quoted the Petitioner once but were about the company rather than the Petitioner himself. One interview article about the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the publication qualified as a professional or major trade publication or major media due to absence of circulation data.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
One publication lacked a required author; two publications did not mention the Petitioner at all; other publications quoted the Petitioner once but were about the company rather than the Petitioner himself. One interview article about the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the publication qualified as a professional or major trade publication or major media due to absence of circulation data.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_03_B2203; source_row=45191 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that while the endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. The expert letters were conclusory and lacked corroborating evidence linking the specific endeavor to broader national impacts; evidence of industry-wide importance does not establish the national importance of the specific endeavor; letters of intent only showed impact on individual clients; and claimed job c…
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 while the endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. The expert letters were conclusory and lacked corroborating evidence linking the specific endeavor to broader national impacts; evidence of industry-wide importance does not establish the national importance of the specific endeavor; letters of intent only showed impact on individual clients; and claimed job creation was unsupported.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_04_B5203; source_row=45205 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
exceptional ability evidence (three of six criteria)
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while SCOPS incorrectly analyzed the petition under the advanced degree prong and misapplied 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(i), the result is the same because the record lacks the evidentiary documentation necessary to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). The documents referenced in the cover letter simply are not present in the record.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while SCOPS incorrectly analyzed the petition under the advanced degree prong and misapplied 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(i), the result is the same because the record lacks the evidentiary documentation necessary to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). The documents referenced in the cover letter simply are not present in the record.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_02_B5203; source_row=45185 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's evidence failed to demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The submitted briefs and articles did not show broader implications, global or national implications within the field, or substantial positive economic effects; unsupported assertions about economic impact do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.
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 evidence failed to demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The submitted briefs and articles did not show broader implications, global or national implications within the field, or substantial positive economic effects; unsupported assertions about economic impact do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_05_B5203; source_row=45216 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agrees the endeavor has substantial merit but the evidence does not show the Petitioner's individual research has prospective impact rising to national importance; letters reference potential and importance generally without corroborating real-world application or broader field implications.
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 the endeavor has substantial merit but the evidence does not show the Petitioner's individual research has prospective impact rising to national importance; letters reference potential and importance generally without corroborating real-world application or broader field implications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_03_B5203; source_row=45196 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI892 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to clear the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted in the alternative that the record would not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement 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 reserved the final merits determination because the petitioner failed to clear the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted in the alternative that the record would not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_01_B2203; source_row=45171 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
commanding a high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the OFLC salary data covered occupations not matching the petitioner's field; BLS data covered too broad a geographic area (all of Michigan rather than the relevant metropolitan area); job advertisements suffered from the same geographic infirmity; and the Zippia and CUPA-HR surveys lacked sufficient job description details and information about survey respondents.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the OFLC salary data covered occupations not matching the petitioner's field; BLS data covered too broad a geographic area (all of Michigan rather than the relevant metropolitan area); job advertisements suffered from the same geographic infirmity; and the Zippia and CUPA-HR surveys lacked sufficient job description details and information about survey respondents.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2026-03-25_01_B2203; source_row=45170 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c