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 9801–9810
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed that while operating a tennis academy has merit, the record failed to show national or global implications or substantial positive economic effects beyond the Petitioner's own clients. New facts raised for the first time on appeal could not establish eligibility. The plan to employ only four workers did not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
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 affirmed that while operating a tennis academy has merit, the record failed to show national or global implications or substantial positive economic effects beyond the Petitioner's own clients. New facts raised for the first time on appeal could not establish eligibility. The plan to employ only four workers did not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-07_02_B5203; source_row=29920 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the proposed endeavor materially changed after filing from employment-based services to forming a new company, which itself is impermissible under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Izummi.…
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 AAO found the proposed endeavor materially changed after filing from employment-based services to forming a new company, which itself is impermissible under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Izummi. Even on the merits, the business plan was too generic, lacked identified clients, lacked evidence of the $100,000 investment, and did not adequately support revenue and staffing projections, failing to show prospective impact rising to national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_01_B5203; source_row=29911 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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
The AAO found that the Petitioner's articles had low citation rates over four decades, his letters came from collaborators and those with commercial interests, his compounds had not been shown to attract field-wide attention, and future anticipated impact cannot satisfy the criterion. Use at a single institution and pending FDA steps are insufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the Petitioner's articles had low citation rates over four decades, his letters came from collaborators and those with commercial interests, his compounds had not been shown to attract field-wide attention, and future anticipated impact cannot satisfy the criterion. Use at a single institution and pending FDA steps are insufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=29907 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the salary comparisons unreliable due to a wide range of figures, lack of specificity as to comparable duties, and failure to account for the Petitioner's status as owner of three businesses. The top 10% of medical scientists earn more than double the Petitioner's stated salary. The standard is high remuneration in relation to others in the field, not whether income supports the Petitioner's lifestyle.
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 salary comparisons unreliable due to a wide range of figures, lack of specificity as to comparable duties, and failure to account for the Petitioner's status as owner of three businesses. The top 10% of medical scientists earn more than double the Petitioner's stated salary. The standard is high remuneration in relation to others in the field, not whether income supports the Petitioner's lifestyle.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=29909 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The additional copies of the press release appearing on different websites were irrelevant because the material was already determined not to be about the Petitioner. Press releases are generally marketing materials and do not qualify. The website reference was not about the Petitioner but merely cited his work among many others.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The additional copies of the press release appearing on different websites were irrelevant because the material was already determined not to be about the Petitioner. Press releases are generally marketing materials and do not qualify. The website reference was not about the Petitioner but merely cited his work among many others.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_02_B2203; source_row=29915 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new letter did not include new information regarding inclusion in biographical publications. Evidence of the lectureship and fellowship was not raised on appeal and is therefore waived. No new evidence demonstrated receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new letter did not include new information regarding inclusion in biographical publications. Evidence of the lectureship and fellowship was not raised on appeal and is therefore waived. No new evidence demonstrated receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_02_B2203; source_row=29914 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original scientific contributions of major significance in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
Complete article copies did not add new evidence of originality or significance. Citation metrics were previously submitted. The new expert letter described potential future impact of a research model but did not show that the model had already been used by other researchers or had a demonstrated significant impact on the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Complete article copies did not add new evidence of originality or significance. Citation metrics were previously submitted. The new expert letter described potential future impact of a research model but did not show that the model had already been used by other researchers or had a demonstrated significant impact on the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_02_B2203; source_row=29916 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical EngineeringPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of three criteria, but noted in advisory fashion that the record does not demonstrate 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 declined to reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of three criteria, but noted in advisory fashion that the record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-06_01_B2203; source_row=29910 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the post-filing material change from physical therapist/consultant to clinic CEO could not retroactively establish eligibility. Even setting that aside, the Petitioner's evidence—unsupported revenue and staffing projections and generalized assertions of impact—did not show that the proposed endeavor would extend beyond her business and clientele to impact the healthcare industry or U.S.…
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 found that the post-filing material change from physical therapist/consultant to clinic CEO could not retroactively establish eligibility. Even setting that aside, the Petitioner's evidence—unsupported revenue and staffing projections and generalized assertions of impact—did not show that the proposed endeavor would extend beyond her business and clientele to impact the healthcare industry or U.S. economy at a level of national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-09-02_01_B5203; source_row=29904 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c