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 9241–9250
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical EngineeringPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although the Petitioner held patents and published articles, the evidence did not establish that his contributions had been widely implemented or had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole. Recommendation letters attested to novelty but lacked specific examples of major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Although the Petitioner held patents and published articles, the evidence did not establish that his contributions had been widely implemented or had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole. Recommendation letters attested to novelty but lacked specific examples of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_04_B2203; source_row=30725 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner compared his salary to average wages for all professional, scientific, and technical activities rather than specifically to other petroleum scientists in Russia. FSSS data reflected average wages, not high salaries within the field, and new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner compared his salary to average wages for all professional, scientific, and technical activities rather than specifically to other petroleum scientists in Russia. FSSS data reflected average wages, not high salaries within the field, and new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_04_B2203; source_row=30727 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner did not identify a specific proposed endeavor, with the record reflecting numerous disparate activities and a material change from the initially described endeavor of medical research, making it impossible to evaluate 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 agreed that the Petitioner did not identify a specific proposed endeavor, with the record reflecting numerous disparate activities and a material change from the initially described endeavor of medical research, making it impossible to evaluate national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_04_B5203; source_row=30729 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that because no specific proposed endeavor was identified, it could not assess whether the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, and concluded she did not meet the second prong.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that because no specific proposed endeavor was identified, it could not assess whether the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance it, and concluded she did not meet the second prong.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_04_B5203; source_row=30730 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award (Cannes Lions)
What the decision said
The AAO noted that the Director failed entirely to analyze whether the Cannes Lions Awards qualify as major, internationally recognized awards under the one-time achievement standard, and remanded for the Director to conduct that analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO noted that the Director failed entirely to analyze whether the Cannes Lions Awards qualify as major, internationally recognized awards under the one-time achievement standard, and remanded for the Director to conduct that analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=30706 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade publications or other major media
What the decision said
The AAO found the Director's analysis to be conclusory and lacking any substantive engagement with the submitted evidence, and remanded for full evaluation.
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 +
The AAO found the Director's analysis to be conclusory and lacking any substantive engagement with the submitted evidence, and remanded for full evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=30712 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media
What the decision said
The AAO found that some submitted articles did include the required identifiers and that the Director failed to analyze the content of the articles, including those featuring interviews and discussions of the Beneficiary's work. The AAO remanded for full evaluation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that some submitted articles did include the required identifiers and that the Director failed to analyze the content of the articles, including those featuring interviews and discussions of the Beneficiary's work. The AAO remanded for full evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=30709 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Participation as a judge of the work of others in the field
What the decision said
The AAO found that the Director again misidentified the Beneficiary's field as 'chief executive officer' rather than marketing, and remanded for the Director to evaluate the judging evidence in the correct field context.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the Director again misidentified the Beneficiary's field as 'chief executive officer' rather than marketing, and remanded for the Director to evaluate the judging evidence in the correct field context.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=30710 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
What the decision said
The AAO found the Director misidentified the Beneficiary's field, failed to analyze the national/international scope of the awards, and failed to explain why the Beneficiary did not personally receive the awards despite being named in evidence. The AAO remanded for full evaluation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the Director misidentified the Beneficiary's field, failed to analyze the national/international scope of the awards, and failed to explain why the Beneficiary did not personally receive the awards despite being named in evidence. The AAO remanded for full evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=30707 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
What the decision said
The AAO remanded for the Director to evaluate the salary evidence in the correct context of the Beneficiary's expertise in the field of marketing, rather than narrowly as a chief executive officer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO remanded for the Director to evaluate the salary evidence in the correct context of the Beneficiary's expertise in the field of marketing, rather than narrowly as a chief executive officer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_02_B2203; source_row=30714 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c