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 8921–8930
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the initial evidence requirements, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
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 satisfy the initial evidence requirements, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-06_01_B2203; source_row=31221 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the PNAS commentary referenced the Petitioner only as lead author with no biographical content, so it was not about her. The press release was promotional marketing material for the supercomputing center, repostings did not count as separate published material, and the record did not establish the website was qualifying media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the PNAS commentary referenced the Petitioner only as lead author with no biographical content, so it was not about her. The press release was promotional marketing material for the supercomputing center, repostings did not count as separate published material, and the record did not establish the website was qualifying media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-03_01_B2203; source_row=31208 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO gave Dr. K-'s letters no evidentiary weight because they used regulatory language throughout, mirrored the appeal brief verbatim in places, and contained statements suggesting the petitioner's representative authored portions, raising authorship concerns. Without those letters, no evidence supported a leading/critical role, and the record also failed to show the K- lab had a distinguished reputation in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO gave Dr. K-'s letters no evidentiary weight because they used regulatory language throughout, mirrored the appeal brief verbatim in places, and contained statements suggesting the petitioner's representative authored portions, raising authorship concerns. Without those letters, no evidence supported a leading/critical role, and the record also failed to show the K- lab had a distinguished reputation in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-03_01_B2203; source_row=31212 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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 did not perform its own final merits determination and instead remanded for the Director to redo the analysis with proper consideration of all evidence and AAO's revised criterion findings.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not perform its own final merits determination and instead remanded for the Director to redo the analysis with proper consideration of all evidence and AAO's revised criterion findings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-03_01_B2203; source_row=31213 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that publication in highly-regarded journals, recognition as noteworthy in PNAS, high citations, and supporting expert letters together establish original contributions of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that publication in highly-regarded journals, recognition as noteworthy in PNAS, high citations, and supporting expert letters together establish original contributions of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-03_01_B2203; source_row=31210 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Proper application for national interest waiver (Form ETA 750B or ETA 9089)
Why the evidence was persuasive
The Petitioner's submission of Form ETA 9089 parts J, K, and L on appeal overcomes the Director's sole basis for denial. Because the Director neither issued an RFE nor a NOID before denying, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit the form prior to denial.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's submission of Form ETA 9089 parts J, K, and L on appeal overcomes the Director's sole basis for denial. Because the Director neither issued an RFE nor a NOID before denying, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit the form prior to denial.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-03_01_B5203; source_row=31214 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Beneficiary holds qualifying advanced degree per labor certification requirements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that accreditation by a DOE/CHEA-approved agency is implicit in the EB-2 advanced degree requirement to ensure nationwide recognition. BPPE state approval does not confer the same nationwide recognition as regional accreditation, and pending future accreditation does not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that accreditation by a DOE/CHEA-approved agency is implicit in the EB-2 advanced degree requirement to ensure nationwide recognition. BPPE state approval does not confer the same nationwide recognition as regional accreditation, and pending future accreditation does not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-02_04_B5203; source_row=31207 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO did not reach the merits of exceptional ability; it remanded because the Director failed to evaluate the petition under the requested classification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not reach the merits of exceptional ability; it remanded because the Director failed to evaluate the petition under the requested classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-02_03_B5203; source_row=31206 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that evidence submitted by the Petitioner itself — including stock certificates showing acquisition in December 2013 and online articles plus the parent company's 2019-20 annual report indicating the first purported successor was 'sold' in 2019, not acquired — created unresolved inconsistencies undermining the claimed successorship chain. The Director had not raised this issue, so AAO flagged it for future filings.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that evidence submitted by the Petitioner itself — including stock certificates showing acquisition in December 2013 and online articles plus the parent company's 2019-20 annual report indicating the first purported successor was 'sold' in 2019, not acquired — created unresolved inconsistencies undermining the claimed successorship chain. The Director had not raised this issue, so AAO flagged it for future filings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-03-02_02_B5203; source_row=31205 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c