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 8581–8590
EB-1AEB-1A · AwardsNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Awards
awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record did not include evidence that the award was recognized by the field in general rather than mainly limited to the conference participants, and no media coverage rose to the level of national or international recognition.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The record did not include evidence that the award was recognized by the field in general rather than mainly limited to the conference participants, and no media coverage rose to the level of national or international recognition.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_01_B2203; source_row=31679 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters showed the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for his particular accounts and projects, but not for the company as a whole. No organizational chart or similar evidence established his place in the overall hierarchy, and the evidence did not show he contributed to the company in a way of significant importance to its overall business operations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters showed the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for his particular accounts and projects, but not for the company as a whole. No organizational chart or similar evidence established his place in the overall hierarchy, and the evidence did not show he contributed to the company in a way of significant importance to its overall business operations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_01_B2203; source_row=31683 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Commanded a high salary or remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner failed this criterion for three reasons: (1) the 2017 tax return was only an 'extract translation' and lacked a certified complete and accurate English translation; (2) no supporting documentation established the sources of his gross income; and (3) the salary comparators used (civil engineers and civil engineering drafters) did not demonstrate exceptional ability as a construction project manager.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed this criterion for three reasons: (1) the 2017 tax return was only an 'extract translation' and lacked a certified complete and accurate English translation; (2) no supporting documentation established the sources of his gross income; and (3) the salary comparators used (civil engineers and civil engineering drafters) did not demonstrate exceptional ability as a construction project manager.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_01_B5203; source_row=31688 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters lacked specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact that the Petitioner's work had in the overall field, and did not show how the work impacted the field beyond individual company clients and users.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The letters lacked specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact that the Petitioner's work had in the overall field, and did not show how the work impacted the field beyond individual company clients and users.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_01_B2203; source_row=31682 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted the aggregate record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved formal final merits analysis because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted the aggregate record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_01_B2203; source_row=31685 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to consider the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to consider the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_02_B5203; source_row=31698 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to consider the second prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to consider the second prong because the Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility and did not sufficiently challenge the Director's first-prong finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_02_B5203; source_row=31697 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
The Petitioner's arguments focused on his personal skills and experience rather than the proposed endeavor itself. AAO found this approach legally misdirected and concluded the Petitioner failed to sufficiently challenge the Director's adverse first-prong finding.
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 Petitioner's arguments focused on his personal skills and experience rather than the proposed endeavor itself. AAO found this approach legally misdirected and concluded the Petitioner failed to sufficiently challenge the Director's adverse first-prong finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-04-07_02_B5203; source_row=31696 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c