Case Library · 2017 to 2026Case Library · 2017–2026
EB-1A, NIW and O-1 approved case libraryEB-1A, NIW and O-1 approved case library
803 approved cases from TOP EASIER and partner law firms, covering 2017–2026. Filter by category, field or situation to review the applicant background, evidence and petition history. Personal details are anonymized.803 approved cases from TOP EASIER and partner law firms, covering 2017–2026. Filter by category, field or situation to review the applicant background, evidence and petition history. Personal details are anonymized.
803casescases
240EB-1A
262NIW
301O-1
10yearyears
Find approved casesFind approved cases
About this collectionAbout this collection
First, the results.All 803 of these cases were approved, and each one lists its approval date. Of these, 408 were filed with premium processing, 112 received a Request for Evidence, and 20 were denied after filing elsewhere and approved here after the evidence was reorganized. They are sorted by approval date, most recent first.
How the fields are divided.USCIS reviews by the applicant's field: EB-1A covers science, business, education, arts and athletics; NIW covers science, business and education; O-1 covers O-1A (science, education, business, athletics) and O-1B (arts, film and television). Of these 803 cases, 397 are science, 142 business, 129 arts, 90 education and 45 athletics, classified by the field claimed at filing.
How to read these cases.For EB-1A, a major international award or at least three of the ten criteria can enter initial review, after which overall achievements are also considered; the key is to separate team results from personal contributions. For NIW, EB-2 eligibility is checked first, then the importance of the proposed endeavor, the applicant's ability to advance it, and the reasons for waiving the job offer. For O-1, extraordinary ability, the U.S. work arrangement and a qualifying employer or agent are considered.
How to read these cases. For EB-1A, a major international award or at least three of ten evidence criteria starts the review; USCIS then assesses the record as a whole. Separate team results from personal contributions. NIW first requires EB-2 eligibility, then the national-interest waiver analysis. O-1 requires extraordinary ability, U.S. work and an eligible employer or agent petitioner.
2026Approved in 2026 · 165 cases
EB-1AArtsApplicant in China
Game narrative designer, EB-1A approvedHow interactive narrative makes choices truly change character relationships
Approved on October 20, 2026, applying from within China. Filed on October 6, 2026, with premium processing, taking 14 days, no RFE.
The game narrative designer grew from quest copywriting and often sat in on player tests to hear why players chose a particular option. Representative projects have releases and independent reviews, not just internal résumés and job descriptions. The story offered many branches, yet players felt that no matter what they chose, characters responded the same way, and choices merely collected different dialogue…
The game narrative designer grew from quest copywriting and often sat in on player tests to hear why players chose a particular option. Representative projects have releases and independent reviews, not just internal résumés and job descriptions. The story offered many branches, yet players felt that no matter what they chose, characters responded the same way, and choices merely collected different dialogue. He designed a structure in which accumulated behavior changes trust and subsequent information, wrote traceable branching rules and tested them with the systems team. Independent reviews specifically analyzed the consequences of choices, and a peer narrative workshop cited the relationship-state design.
Original contributions
The approach he proposed is to let player behavior change subsequent narrative information through relationship states; independent reviews and peer citations can support the influence of the artistic method, while the programming implementation and overall product results must be distinguished from his own contributions.
Difficulties and evidence
Cross-scenario use does not equal universal validity; the conditions under which player behavior changes the applicability of subsequent narrative information through relationship states need to be explained. Drawing on actual work in interactive narrative works, select original narrative contributions, representative works, and independent professional reviews, and explain which decisions in "having player behavior change subsequent narrative information through relationship states" were made by the applicant personally; address software registration and the impact of the works separately.
Key points of the materials
Software copyright: existing registrations related to interactive narrative, versions, and the applicant's responsibilities for narrative modules; the entire product must not be attributed to the individual. Original contributions: the branch and relationship design drafts for "having player behavior change subsequent narrative information through relationship states," version author records, and release and independent reviews, explaining the applicant's own approach and how it was adopted or verified. Representative works: branch and relationship design drafts, version author records, and credit materials, explaining the specific creative work the applicant undertook in "having player behavior change subsequent narrative information through relationship states." Media and professional reviews: independent game reviews; materials in which peer workshops cite the work for other narrative-method uses, along with the full text of the original independent reviews, authors, and publication dates, checking whether they specifically discuss the applicant or the applicant's works. Independent evaluations: the professional background of existing recommenders, their relationship with the applicant, and the facts they witnessed firsthand, cross-checked against citations in peer workshops.
Case highlights
Game narrative professionals must demonstrate the structures they created and external evaluations, not merely list products they participated in.
Software copyright
Original contributions
Representative works
Media reviews
Independent recommenders
Premium
NIWScienceU.S. graduates
PhD in Software Engineering, NIW approvedEvent ordering in electronic health record interoperability: how a PhD in Software Engineering explains individual work
Approved on October 20, 2026, applied after graduating in the U.S. Filed December 4, 2023, regular processing, approximately 34.5 months, no request for evidence.
The applicant has obtained a U.S. PhD in Software Engineering and, after graduating, participated in electronic health record interoperability research; the existing test scope is small, and event ordering has not yet been validated in enough external scenarios. In a new round of interoperability validation testing, she found that different arrival times across systems changed the order of clinical events. She distinguished occurrence time from receipt time and replayed referral records...
The applicant has obtained a U.S. PhD in Software Engineering and, after graduating, participated in electronic health record interoperability research; the existing test scope is small, and event ordering has not yet been validated in enough external scenarios. In a new round of interoperability validation testing, she found that different arrival times across systems changed the order of clinical events. She distinguished occurrence time from receipt time and replayed referral records, restored her individual division of work and broke the work into retestable steps, and checked whether the adjustments affected one another. Going forward, she plans to build a temporal test set for continuous care, compare performance under different conditions, and then determine the method's scope of application.
Professional value and conditions for advancing
Going forward, she plans to build a temporal test set for continuous care records, distinguishing event occurrence time from system receipt time, and to examine ordering misreads caused by late records and updates. Public interface testing and multi-institution collaboration can assess transfer conditions; temporal ordering alone cannot resolve missing information or duplicate entry, and related benefits require separate evidence of completeness and deduplication.
Difficulties and evidence
External validation of event ordering is limited, so real testing must be supplemented and it must be explained what U.S. collaborators can participate in. The waiver argument can combine existing investment in event ordering with public interface testing and multi-institution collaboration to explain the public benefit of continuing this endeavor.
Key points of the materials
Papers and citations: 6 papers, 142 public citations with source details; completed peer review: 4 times with completion records; event ordering: the applicant's own event time rules; cross-system referral record replay; event ordering: cross-institution data collaboration and permission scheme; event ordering: original records and field definitions
Case highlights
After completing single-point testing of event ordering, it is still necessary to check whether semantics and states remain consistent during cross-system transfer.
Papers
Citations
Peer review
Association membership
Independent recommenders
O-1BArtsApplicant in China
Choral conductor, O-1B approvedYouth choirs also have differing vocal conditions
Approved October 19, 2026, applied from within China. Filed September 29, 2026, premium processing with the case, 20 days, no request for evidence.
The choral conductor hopes to go to the U.S. early to take on a specific project and is finalizing U.S. employment duties; she has accumulated works, but external reviews have not been connected to the parts she was responsible for. The conductor wants to preserve complex harmonies, but differences in members' vocal ranges and experience stall rehearsal progress. She therefore adjusted voice-part assignments and practice order and kept records of musical treatment and performances...
The choral conductor hopes to go to the U.S. early to take on a specific project and is finalizing U.S. employment duties; she has accumulated works, but external reviews have not been connected to the parts she was responsible for. The conductor wants to preserve complex harmonies, but differences in members' vocal ranges and experience stall rehearsal progress. She therefore adjusted voice-part assignments and practice order and kept records of musical treatment and performances; existing performance reviews discussed her conducting method. When organizing her experience, she recovered the existing division of work from professional performance programs, and the U.S. employer plans to arrange a youth choir performance.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
Artistic choices involve adjusting voice part assignments and practice order, preserving musical interpretations and performance records; conductor position certificates confirm one's role, independent music reviews discuss the work's interpretation, and judgment is based on artistic achievement and professional reputation.
Difficulties and evidence
The difficulty is that youth choirs also have different vocal conditions, and collective works require distinguishing one's representative role. Professional performance programs and independent music reviews support claims in the artistic field; U.S. employer contracts must list responsibilities and duration.
Key points of the materials
Professional performance programs, independent music reviews, conductor position certificates, recognition of past performances, commissions for youth choral works
Case highlights
For youth choral works, first clarify the representative role, then use professional reviews to explain artistic choices and field recognition.
Representative works
Major exhibitions/performances
Media reviews
Professional awards
High income
Premium
NIWScienceU.S. graduates
Master's in Mechanical Engineering, NIW approvedMaster's in Mechanical Engineering with experience in industrial robot grasping control, how to handle stacked workpieces
Approved on October 16, 2026, applied after graduating in the U.S. Filed on March 25, 2024, regular processing, took about 30.7 months, no request for evidence.
This Master's in Mechanical Engineering has completed studies in the U.S.; achievements in industrial robot grasping control are scattered across papers and project records, and the individual's role in stacked workpieces lacks clear correspondence. While discussing a pilot production line for bulk part feeding with participants, he found that grasping the upper part dragged the lower workpiece and jammed the gripper. He added post-grasp confirmation and designed a failure release action…
This Master's in Mechanical Engineering has completed studies in the U.S.; achievements in industrial robot grasping control are scattered across papers and project records, and the individual's role in stacked workpieces lacks clear correspondence. While discussing a pilot production line for bulk part feeding with participants, he found that grasping the upper part dragged the lower workpiece and jammed the gripper. He added post-grasp confirmation and designed a failure release action, verified feedback with relevant users, and preserved original comparisons. Subsequent U.S. work plans to establish a recovery process reusable by production line operators, invite actual users to participate in key tests, and collect feedback on operational burden, effectiveness, and limitations.
Professional value and conditions for advancing
Plans to continue advancing work related to industrial robot grasping control in the U.S., prioritizing issues related to stacked workpieces, with the goal of improving stability in multi-variety production and worker safety. Plans to use cross-line validation and control method sharing, comparing the actual effectiveness of methods under different conditions.
Difficulties and evidence
Achievements on stacked workpieces are scattered; it is necessary to clarify individual work from original records and explain who the proposed endeavor serves in the U.S. This case uses individual work related to stacked workpieces to demonstrate capability, and cross-line validation and control method sharing to explain the cross-institutional impact path of the endeavor.
Key points of the materials
Papers and citations: 2 papers, 60 public citations and source details, completed peer reviews: 2 times and completion records, stacked workpieces: personal design changes and responsibility description; stress testing and field feedback, stacked workpieces: U.S. pilot scenarios and implementation arrangements, stacked workpieces: prototype or field operation records
Case highlights
A single-site pilot for stacked workpieces can serve as a starting point; cross-condition testing helps determine the scope of promotion for the proposed endeavor.
Approved on October 15, 2026, applied from within the country. Filed on November 14, 2023, regular processing, took about 35.0 months, no request for evidence.
After graduating with a master's in agricultural engineering in the country, the applicant gradually assumed the responsibilities of an agricultural technology researcher; her experience with water-saving irrigation sensor systems comes from actual projects, and rainfall forecasting prompted her to plan specific subsequent work in the U.S. After participating in an orchard irrigation decision project, she found that expected rainfall did not arrive, causing automatic irrigation shutdown to damage crops…
After graduating with a master's in agricultural engineering in the country, the applicant gradually assumed the responsibilities of an agricultural technology researcher; her experience with water-saving irrigation sensor systems comes from actual projects, and rainfall forecasting prompted her to plan specific subsequent work in the U.S. After participating in an orchard irrigation decision project, she found that expected rainfall did not arrive, causing automatic irrigation shutdown to damage crops. She set a moisture threshold and compared strategies under different forecast errors, confirmed through repeated checks where the problem originated, and listed unresolved situations separately. After going to the U.S., she plans to develop irrigation recommendations that allow farmers to manually intervene, first testing with a small cooperative team, then gradually increasing usage scenarios.
Professional value and conditions for advancing
Existing rainfall forecasting work is planned to extend to on-demand irrigation monitoring for U.S. agricultural production, with the purpose of improving agricultural water efficiency and management operability in water-scarce areas. Subsequent cooperation will be carried out through agricultural extension trials and comparisons of different crop plots to test which aspects are suitable for promotion.
Difficulties and evidence
Existing projects focus on rainfall forecasting; when applying, it is necessary to clearly explain the scope of subsequent work and the actual cross-institutional uses. Validation regarding rainfall forecasting can explain the conditions for advancement, and subsequent agricultural extension trials and comparisons of different crop plots should reflect uses beyond a single employer.
Key points of the materials
Rainfall forecasting: on-site sample points and original observation records, rainfall forecasting: personal processing methods and calibration steps, rainfall forecasting: independent plots or event replay comparisons, rainfall forecasting: U.S. on-site cooperation and trial arrangements
Case highlights
When other regions adopt rainfall forecasting methods, local environmental and data coverage conditions need to be re-examined.
Papers
Citations
Peer review
Association membership
Independent recommenders
EB-1ABusinessDomestic enterprise operator
Founder of a fresh food retail technology company, EB-1A approvedHow fresh food forecasting addresses surplus inventory after holidays
Approved on October 15, 2026, applied from within the country. Filed on January 3, 2025, switched to expedited processing midway, took about 21.4 months, no request for evidence.
The fresh food retail technology entrepreneur has participated in store ordering and is accustomed to reviewing spoilage and stockout records after closing. Representative projects have retail partner review forms, not just internal resumes and job descriptions. Pre-holiday forecasting aims to avoid stockouts; after holidays, surplus items and new arrivals overlap, and sales alone cannot pinpoint the source of waste…
The fresh food retail technology entrepreneur has participated in store ordering and is accustomed to reviewing spoilage and stockout records after closing. Representative projects have retail partner review forms, not just internal resumes and job descriptions. Pre-holiday forecasting aims to avoid stockouts; after holidays, surplus items and new arrivals overlap, and sales alone cannot pinpoint the source of waste. He incorporated shelf life, arrival batches, and substitutable demand into ordering recommendations and designed a way for store managers to explain manual adjustments. Independent retail partners adopted the batch review form, enabling separate comparison of forecast deviation and display handling effects.
Original contributions
The approach proposed is to validate demand forecasts using sellable windows and batch status; continued use and independent comparisons by external retailers can support the method's value, and reductions in spoilage need to exclude procurement and weather changes.
Difficulties and evidence
Project success has multiple causes; it is necessary to distinguish "validating demand forecasts with sellable windows and batch status" from the respective roles of the team and the environment. "Validating demand forecasts with sellable windows and batch status" is the methodology part; original contributions, suitable professional publication, and the applicant's project role are the evidentiary directions selected based on the original background, with facts rather than labels being decisive; association records serve only as background, and the nature of the articles and the methodology affect their respective verification.
Key points of the materials
Original contributions: the batch forecasting rules, store adjustment logs, and retail partner review tables for "validating demand forecasts with sellable windows and batch status," respectively explaining the applicant's approach and the adoption or verification status; professional publication: the authorship, body text, nature of the publication, and specific content on fresh-produce demand forecasting and loss control of the 4 original industry articles, without equating ordinary promotional pieces with professional papers; the applicant's project role: records of the decisions and responsibilities of the founder of a fresh-produce retail technology company in fresh-produce demand forecasting and loss control, corresponding to the store adjustment logs; independent evaluation: the 3 original independent recommenders explaining their professional backgrounds, basis of knowledge, and the contributions of the applicant they observed, verified in conjunction with independent effect analysis; association and industry records: retain employment background and admission materials; ordinary paid memberships are not asserted as membership qualifications for selection based on extraordinary achievement.
Case highlights
Contributions in fresh-produce technology should explain the specific problems the forecasting method solves and the conditions of comparison.
Software copyright
Media coverage
Leadership
High income
Awards
Premium
EB-1AAthleticsApplicant in the United States
Fencer, EB-1A approvedHow a fencer demonstrates consistent performance against different opponents
Approved on October 13, 2026, applying while employed in the United States. Filed on January 19, 2024, regular processing, approximately 32.8 months, no request for evidence.
In the early stage, the athlete relied on attacks with a fixed rhythm; after moving to higher-level competitions, he often reviewed point by point with his coach after matches. The representative project retains match footage against different opponents, not merely internal résumés and position descriptions. Against familiar opponents he could score quickly, but against fencers who controlled distance he was frequently counterattacked, exposing insufficient adaptability in his original training habits. He adjusted probing, distance, and rhythm transitions…
In the early stage, the athlete relied on attacks with a fixed rhythm; after moving to higher-level competitions, he often reviewed point by point with his coach after matches. The representative project retains match footage against different opponents, not merely internal résumés and position descriptions. Against familiar opponents he could score quickly, but against fencers who controlled distance he was frequently counterattacked, exposing insufficient adaptability in his original training habits. He adjusted probing, distance, and rhythm transitions, tested them in official competitions before filing, and kept round analyses against different opponents. Official results, selections, and independent technical evaluations present his individual competitive trajectory; training reflections only explain the development process.
Original contributions
The approach proposed by the applicant is to adjust his own distance and rhythm choices based on opponent feedback; personal improvements in playing style are not asserted on their own as original contributions to the field, and competitive achievements must be supported by competition level, official results, and sustained recognition.
Difficulties and evidence
Participation in international fencing competitions does not equal individual recognition; official results, level of competition, and the applicant's role must be distinguished. The focus is on the original international fencing competition results, awards, and coverage specific to the applicant, with key footage illustrating individual performance; personal training changes are not asserted on their own as original contributions to the field.
Key points of the materials
Competition results: official competition results and the corresponding competition levels, together with selection and participation records, explaining official results, eligibility, and level of competition; sports awards: the formal conferral and competition level of the original international fencing awards, distinguishing individual, team, and coach award recipients; media coverage: the original independent coverage of the applicant's competitive or coaching performance in international fencing competitions, retaining author, issue, and body text; the applicant's competitive role: match footage against different opponents and selection or assignment records, with team results not attributed entirely to the applicant; independent evaluation: independent competitive evaluations and specific factual assessments of the applicant's competitive ability by the original recommenders.
Case highlights
Fencing talent must demonstrate comparable competitive recognition; personal tactical reflections cannot be packaged as an industry invention.
Competition results
Sports awards
Media coverage
Key role
Independent recommenders
O-1BArtsApplicant in the United States
Film and television sound designer, O-1B approvedSpatial sound is not about adding more channels
Approved on October 12, 2026, applying while employed in the United States. Filed on September 22, 2026, with premium processing, 20 days, no request for evidence.
The film and television sound designer works in the United States and is considering a new appointment in the same field; the lead creative role and evaluations of the work are relatively clear, while the new film plan still needs to be made specific. The sound designer's early approach had a strong sense of localization but interfered with the film's narrative focus. In the actual adjustment, she rearranged the sound field according to the character's perspective, retaining mixing and director feedback; existing film reviews specifically mention the sound treatment…
The film and television sound designer works in the United States and is considering a new appointment in the same field; the lead creative role and evaluations of the work are relatively clear, while the new film plan still needs to be made specific. The sound designer's early approach had a strong sense of localization but interfered with the film's narrative focus. In the actual adjustment, she rearranged the sound field according to the character's perspective, retaining mixing and director feedback; existing film reviews specifically mention the sound treatment, and the credits confirm her role. Subsequently, the final-film sound credits demonstrate specific experience, and a new U.S. project is planned to have her handle film sound post-production.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
The production choice was to rearrange the sound field according to the character's perspective, retaining mixing and director feedback; the final-film sound credits confirm the applicant's role, independent professional film reviews discuss the work's performance, and film and television work is assessed under the corresponding achievement requirements.
Difficulties and evidence
That spatial sound is not about adding more channels is the angle of this case; evaluations of the final film must point to the part the applicant was responsible for. The U.S. agent must file based on the spatial sound narrative project, with the contract specifying duties and duration; final-film sound credits support the claim.
Key points of the materials
Final-film sound credits, independent professional film reviews, proof of lead creative role, recognition of existing works
Case highlights
With respect to spatial sound narrative, the film contract describes future work, while evaluations of the works describe existing film and television achievements.
Representative works
Professional awards
Media reviews
Significant role
Independent recommenders
Premium
O-1BArtsU.S. graduates
Film and television sound designer, O-1B approvedImmersive sound testing exposed gaps in the dialogue
Approved on October 12, 2026, applying after not being selected in the H-1B lottery. Filed on September 22, 2026, with premium processing, 20 days, no request for evidence.
The film and television sound designer was previously not selected in the H-1B lottery and has separate intent to work in the United States; he has formal film and television works and industry evaluations, and now needs to establish the project timeline. Dialogue clarity varies greatly across different screening environments, and in-studio results alone cannot explain it. After discussion, he and the mixing personnel compared playback and channel compatibility across different delivery formats…
The film and television sound designer was previously not selected in the H-1B lottery and has separate intent to work in the United States; he has formal film and television works and industry evaluations, and now needs to establish the project timeline. Dialogue clarity varies greatly across different screening environments, and in-studio results alone cannot explain it. After discussion, he and the mixing personnel compared playback and channel compatibility across different delivery formats, checking segment by segment the masking of dialogue by ambient sound; the production side confirmed his sound design responsibilities, and existing works have received professional evaluations. The next phase of work is planned to be immersive film sound production in the United States, while existing professional sound reviews account for prior professional recognition.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
The sound design choice lies in organizing the narrative layers of dialogue, ambient sound, and spatial position; the final-film credits and sound reviews explain the applicant's role and professional evaluation. Format adaptation and final mixing must specify collaborative responsibilities, and a single in-studio listening test cannot be used to infer the effects in all theaters.
Difficulties and evidence
This case must explain that immersive sound testing exposed gaps in dialogue, and establish that a U.S. film contract cannot substitute for existing film and television achievements. The production company's position letter must point to the applicant's own role; the U.S. employer contract must clearly set out the immersive film sound production duties and duration.
Key points of the materials
Screen credits, professional sound reviews, production company position letter, recognition of existing film and television works
Case highlights
Not being selected in the H-1B lottery does not automatically satisfy O-1; immersive film sound experience must still demonstrate professional recognition in the field.
Representative works
Awards
Media coverage
Key role
Independent recommenders
Premium
O-1ABusinessApplicant in China
Environmental services product lead, O-1A approvedThe source records for the carbon emissions report do not match
Approved on October 9, 2026, applying from within the country. Filed on September 21, 2026, with premium processing requested alongside the case, 18 days total, no request for evidence.
This environmental services product lead works day to day in the country, and the U.S. collaborative project requires his presence to carry out his duties; there are already partner evaluations and concrete results, and the proposed U.S. duties must still be clearly defined. The product team can produce reports, but during client review they cannot trace back to the equipment and billing sources. As work continued, he added data provenance and version tracking and clarified different accounting boundaries…
This environmental services product lead works day to day in the country, and the U.S. collaborative project requires his presence to carry out his duties; there are already partner evaluations and concrete results, and the proposed U.S. duties must still be clearly defined. The product team can produce reports, but during client review they cannot trace back to the equipment and billing sources. As work continued, he added data provenance and version tracking and clarified different accounting boundaries; the partner company continues to use the traceability function, and the software copyright matches the actual version. This work is already supported by independent industry evaluations, and the proposed U.S. appointment would have him responsible for enterprise carbon emissions data services.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
The specific contribution is reflected in adding data provenance and version tracking and clarifying different accounting boundaries. Combining the platform software copyright and independent industry evaluations to explain his personal decisions and actual adoption, then determine whether this goes beyond ordinary job duties.
Difficulties and evidence
The difficulty is that the source records for the carbon emissions report do not match, and internal growth still needs to demonstrate recognition at the industry level. The U.S. employer must put in place an employment contract, duties and duration for enterprise carbon emissions data services, and independent industry evaluations must support the professional claims.
Key points of the materials
Platform software copyright, adoption by external enterprises, technical validation projects, independent industry evaluations
Case highlights
Providing enterprise carbon emissions data services cannot just list a position; genuine adoption feedback should point to the methods he proposed.
Industry awards
Media coverage
Critical leadership
High income
Independent recommenders
Premium
NIWScienceSTEM graduate in the United States
Master's in Mechanical Engineering, NIW approvedHow rehabilitation robot motion control can serve the United States: a mechanical engineering master's graduate starts with motion interruption
Approved on October 9, 2026, applying after graduating in the United States. Filed on September 25, 2024, switched to premium processing midway, about 24.4 months total, no request for evidence.
The applicant has obtained a U.S. master's degree in mechanical engineering and continued researching rehabilitation robot motion control after graduation; she is currently moving experimental experience with motion interruption toward practical use scenarios. In hospital testing, the original approach needed to be tested under more complex conditions. She found that when a patient suddenly stopped exerting force, the device continued to pull. She distinguished explicit withdrawal requests from a mere decline in force…
The applicant has obtained a U.S. master's degree in mechanical engineering and continued researching rehabilitation robot motion control after graduation; she is currently moving experimental experience with motion interruption toward practical use scenarios. In hospital testing, the original approach needed to be tested under more complex conditions. She found that when a patient suddenly stopped exerting force, the device continued to pull. She distinguished explicit withdrawal requests from a mere decline in force, compared the response and stopping distance of the stop logic, incorporated this adjustment into repeatable testing, and retained unsatisfactory results. Next, she plans to refine safety controls that can be re-verified by different clinical teams, for U.S. partners to assess the investment and limitations required for adoption.
Professional value and conditions for advancing
Human-machine motion control for U.S. assistive rehabilitation devices needs to address issues related to motion interruption. She plans to use clinical research collaborations and reproducible safety testing to gather external feedback, with the goal of improving the adaptability of rehabilitation assistive devices for patients with different functional states, and to determine the next phase of tasks accordingly.
Difficulties and evidence
Addressing motion interruption cannot rely on a single test; it must also demonstrate repeatable value in different environments. Through clinical research collaborations and reproducible safety testing to serve multiple users, experience with motion interruption supports her continued pursuit of this specific endeavor.
Key points of the materials
Papers and citations: 4 papers, 32 public citations with source details, completed peer review: 3 times with completion records, motion interruption: her own design changes and duty description; stress testing and field feedback, motion interruption: U.S. pilot scenarios and implementation arrangements, association membership and activities (professional exchange background); 1 independent recommendation letter
Case highlights
Retesting motion interruption on different devices helps distinguish transferable methods from experience specific to a particular site.
Papers
Citations
Peer review
Association membership
Independent recommenders
Premium
EB-1AScienceApplicant in China
Food testing expert, EB-1A approvedHow multi-target rapid testing can avoid results interfering with each other
Approved on October 7, 2026, applying from within the country. Filed on June 10, 2024, regular processing, about 27.9 months total, 1 request for evidence.
Request for evidence history, 1st: notice on 2025-09-02, reply received on 2025-10-22. The senior testing expert leads the method development team and day to day must explain to clients the limitations of combined testing of multiple indicators. The initial reaction combination designs were mostly internal records, and clues about peer use were not organized. Individual tests were each stable…
Request for evidence history, 1st: notice on 2025-09-02, reply received on 2025-10-22. The senior testing expert leads the method development team and day to day must explain to clients the limitations of combined testing of multiple indicators. The initial reaction combination designs were mostly internal records, and clues about peer use were not organized. Individual tests were each stable, but after combination some target signals were affected, and the team found it difficult to determine whether it was a sample problem or system competition. After project support staff helped reconstruct the process, he designed grouping verification and interference identification steps, adjusted the reaction combination, and organized external blinded sample testing. An independent laboratory adopted the grouping verification approach, and professional reviewers specifically evaluated the scope of application of multi-target testing.
Original contributions
The approach he proposed is to identify mutual interference in multi-target reactions through intra-group controls; external blinded samples and method citations can support technical significance, and the number of patents cannot replace actual measurement evidence for combined testing.
Difficulties and evidence
The difficulty lies in proving that identifying mutual interference in multi-target reactions through intra-group controls solved a specific problem, and in defining the scope of external adoption. The request for evidence separately explains his role and the external significance; the original professional method claim centers on "identifying mutual interference in multi-target reactions through intra-group controls," the reaction combination design explains the process he proposed, and the external blinded sample reports are used to analyze actual adoption or validation and professional significance.
Key points of the materials
Original method and his own design: reaction combination design, related method patents, testing or acceptance materials: external blinded sample reports, independent method citations
Case highlights
The original points in the testing field must be specific to the technical problem and the solution steps, not just written as multi-item combined testing.
Patent
Awards
Media coverage
Leadership
Association membership
1 request for evidence (RFE)
O-1AEducationApplicant in the United States
Founder of a language education program, O-1A approvedWhy oral assessment scores change when the rater changes
Approved on October 2, 2026, applied while awaiting visa availability. Filed on June 26, 2026, switched to premium processing midway, took about 3.2 months, no RFE.
Founder of a language education program whose immigrant visa priority date has not yet become current, plans to lawfully take on projects in the same field in the United States; most of what he has are internal teaching summaries, and the specific methods have not yet been separately explained. In the training program, different teachers score the same performance and often reach different conclusions. After making choices, he built an example library and a disagreement discussion procedure, preserving the score calibration process; an external training team adopted the rubric…
Founder of a language education program whose immigrant visa priority date has not yet become current, plans to lawfully take on projects in the same field in the United States; most of what he has are internal teaching summaries, and the specific methods have not yet been separately explained. In the training program, different teachers score the same performance and often reach different conclusions. After making choices, he built an example library and a disagreement discussion procedure, preserving the score calibration process; an external training team adopted the rubric, and professional evaluations focused on the method. He and his consultant restored existing records from the educational research project results; the next employed position is a collaboration on oral assessment for U.S. teachers.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
He uses performance examples and disagreement discussions to calibrate teachers' oral scores. The educational research project results and method contribution records explain the design, and cross-institution adoption records explain the use; inter-rater consistency and the validity of oral proficiency interpretations need to be tested separately, and professional review experience must also have actual subjects and performed duties.
Difficulties and evidence
Why oral assessment scores change when the rater changes is the entry point of this case; having run a course several times does not equal established recognition in the field. Educational research project results and cross-institution adoption records support the claim of the corresponding field; the U.S. employer contract must list duties and duration.
Key points of the materials
Educational research project results, cross-institution adoption records, professional review experience, his own method contribution, task statement for the teacher oral assessment collaboration
Case highlights
Existing educational research project results still require review of professional qualifications; obtaining O-1 itself will not advance the immigrant visa priority date.
Teaching awards
Media coverage
Course outcomes
Leadership
High income
Premium
O-1AScienceU.S. graduates
PhD in Data Science, O-1A approvedData science PhD student: rare disease models most easily overlook minority samples
Approved on October 2, 2026, applied after graduating in the United States. Filed on September 15, 2026, with premium processing, took 17 days, no RFE.
Data science PhD student, preparing for U.S. employment after completing the doctoral stage, with achievements as of before this filing; she already has project accumulation, but key technical choices are hidden in collaboration records. The overall results of the doctoral research are good, but extremely few cases lack credible comparison. In specific execution, she distinguishes phenotype states confirmed absent, not yet observed, and unrecorded…
Data science PhD student, preparing for U.S. employment after completing the doctoral stage, with achievements as of before this filing; she already has project accumulation, but key technical choices are hidden in collaboration records. The overall results of the doctoral research are good, but extremely few cases lack credible comparison. In specific execution, she distinguishes phenotype states confirmed absent, not yet observed, and unrecorded, and sets manual review prompts; collaborating researchers used a stratified validation method. She then connected independent citation content with the duties at the time; the task the U.S. project plans to assign her is rare disease data research.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
She separates phenotypes explicitly absent from not yet observed and unrecorded states, and sets manual review prompts. The papers and the stratified validation method explain the research design; this alone cannot resolve the lack of credible reference for extremely few cases, and citations and collaboration feedback do not equal proof of established clinical diagnostic performance.
Difficulties and evidence
This case needs to explain that rare disease models most easily overlook minority samples, and to show that pilot effectiveness also requires explaining the scope of external use. The U.S. employer lists same-field duties and duration in the contract, and the doctoral-stage papers and independent citation content support the professional claim.
Only doctoral-stage papers completed before filing may be used; future work plans cannot serve as existing professional achievements.
Papers
Citations
Peer review
Association membership
Independent recommenders
Premium
EB-1AAthleticsApplicant in China
Soccer program coach, EB-1A approvedHow goalkeeper training links saves back to back-line communication
Approved on October 1, 2026, applied from within China. Filed on September 23, 2026, with premium processing, took 8 days, no RFE.
The soccer coach has long been responsible for goalkeeper-specific work and often reviews goals conceded in front of the box together with defenders. When early organizing the linked-opposition drill design, he found that company and individual achievements were often written up together. Goalkeepers perform well in isolated save drills, but in matches facing crosses they and the defenders wait for each other, and conceding cannot be attributed only to reaction speed. When jointly sorting out the before-and-after changes in the actual work…
The soccer coach has long been responsible for goalkeeper-specific work and often reviews goals conceded in front of the box together with defenders. When early organizing the linked-opposition drill design, he found that company and individual achievements were often written up together. Goalkeepers perform well in isolated save drills, but in matches facing crosses they and the defenders wait for each other, and conceding cannot be attributed only to reaction speed. When jointly sorting out the before-and-after changes in the actual work, he designed a linked-opposition drill on pre-cross information judgment and calling responsibility, having goalkeepers and defenders exchange perspectives to explain their choices. An independent team adopted the linked tasks, and external coaches gave professional evaluations of communication and the timing of coming out in the video.
Original contributions
His training adjustment in this project connects goalkeeper and back-line training through shared information and responsibility cues; adoption by external teams and independent technical-tactical evaluations can support the contribution, and the team's goals conceded cannot all be attributed to the specialist coach.
Difficulties and evidence
It is necessary to connect the design process of linking goalkeeper and back-line training through shared information and responsibility cues with actual external use, rather than merely listing project scale. The materials start from the real work of "linking goalkeeper and back-line training through shared information and responsibility cues," focusing on the specific training methods, external adoption supported by the research project, coaching recognition, and media reports; the training project and recommendation letters support the contribution and are not repeatedly treated as independent achievement criteria.
Key points of the materials
Training project: the existing project related to soccer goalkeeper training, the linked-opposition drill design, and the communication and coming-out replay, corresponding to his design and implementation duties, training methods, and external application: the linked-opposition drill design of "linking goalkeeper and back-line training through shared information and responsibility cues," the communication and coming-out replay, and adoption by external teams, separately explaining his approach and the adoption or verification status; team results and his role: existing formal results, actual coaching period, and corresponding player records, not attributing all of the team's historical results to him; media reports: existing independent reports on his competitive or coaching performance in soccer goalkeeper training, retaining author, issue date, and full text; independent evaluations: the recommenders' existing professional backgrounds, their relationship with him, and facts they personally witnessed, cross-checked against independent technical evaluations
Case highlights
A goalkeeper coach's original contribution can be a coordination method, which requires specific tasks and external verification.
Training project
Original contributions
Team results
Media coverage
Independent recommenders
Premium
O-1AEducationApplicant in the United States
Head of EdTech Curriculum R&D, O-1A ApprovedAdaptive courses cannot treat a temporary wrong answer as not knowing
Approved on September 28, 2026, applied while employed in the U.S. Filed on September 15, 2026, with premium processing, took 13 days, no RFE.
The head of EdTech curriculum R&D works in the U.S. and is considering a new appointment in the same field; has participated in educational reform projects, with personal contributions hidden across different versions of tools. The platform arranges learning paths based on single answers, and state fluctuations cause students to repeatedly return to basic content. After review, he added multiple evidence and teacher review interfaces, keeping classroom trial records…
The head of EdTech curriculum R&D works in the U.S. and is considering a new appointment in the same field; has participated in educational reform projects, with personal contributions hidden across different versions of tools. The platform arranges learning paths based on single answers, and state fluctuations cause students to repeatedly return to basic content. After review, he added multiple evidence and teacher review interfaces, keeping classroom trial records; other schools adopted the revised plan, and the project explained the method's boundaries. Through the learning platform software copyright, the existing work context was restored, and then the U.S. responsibilities were specified for the adaptive learning project.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
His expertise lies in adding multiple evidence and teacher review interfaces, keeping classroom trial records. The learning platform software copyright must correspond to actual software functions and his own design records; registration itself does not prove methodological novelty or impact. Independent EdTech evaluations reflect professional recognition, thereby distinguishing his role from that of the educational reform team.
Difficulties and evidence
This case needs to explain that adaptive courses cannot treat a temporary wrong answer as not knowing, and that the feedback adopted must point to specific educational practices. The U.S. agent must submit according to the adaptive learning platform project, with the contract specifying responsibilities and duration; educational projects support the claim.
The adaptive learning platform must explain how specific tools are used; project approval cannot replace actual contributions.
Software copyright
Project
Original contributions
Cross-school application
Independent recommenders
Premium
O-1AScienceApplicant in the United States
PhD in Computer Graphics, O-1A ApprovedRendered images are smooth but flicker during motion
Approved on September 28, 2026, applied while waiting for visa priority date. Filed on September 18, 2026, with premium processing, took 10 days, no RFE.
The PhD in computer graphics is still waiting for immigration priority date and needs to arrange U.S. work; initially could only present team results, with personal technical role described vaguely. The PhD research's single-frame results were good, but continuous motion showed detail flickering. Facing this problem, she redid temporal stability tests and adjusted sampling and caching rules; an external development team reused part of the solution…
The PhD in computer graphics is still waiting for immigration priority date and needs to arrange U.S. work; initially could only present team results, with personal technical role described vaguely. The PhD research's single-frame results were good, but continuous motion showed detail flickering. Facing this problem, she redid temporal stability tests and adjusted sampling and caching rules; an external development team reused part of the solution, and the paper explained the cost. While organizing her experience, she recovered the existing division of labor from open-source adoption records, and plans to have the U.S. employer arrange real-time graphics engine research.
Professional Achievements and Recognition
The specific contribution is redoing temporal stability tests and adjusting sampling and caching rules; the graphics paper explains the technical content, external citations support external validation, and the roles of the individual and the team must be distinguished.
Difficulties and evidence
The difficulty is that rendered images are smooth but flicker during motion, and internal metrics need to connect with field recognition. Open-source adoption records must point to her role; the U.S. employer contract clearly lists real-time graphics engine research responsibilities and duration.
Key points of the materials
Graphics papers, external citations, open-source adoption records, professional review experience
Case highlights
O-1 addresses temporary work arrangements related to real-time rendering algorithms and does not change immigration priority dates.
Approved on September 25, 2026, applied while employed in the U.S. Filed on January 16, 2024, regular processing, took about 32.3 months, no RFE.
The exhibition technology partner is familiar with venue operations and often coordinates work between nighttime dismantling and the next event's move-in. When early organizing space handover forms, he found that company and personal achievements were often mixed. The previous event's move-out left equipment status unclear, and only after the next event moved in were power and access arrangements found to be inconsistent. After reviewing early failure records with the support team…
Exhibition technology partner familiar with venue operations, often coordinating work between nighttime move-out and the next event's move-in. While organizing space handover sheets early on, found that company and individual results were often mixed together. The previous event's move-out left equipment status unclear, and only after the next event's move-in was it discovered that power and access arrangements did not match. After reviewing early failure records with the support team, designed a status sheet for handover by space unit, jointly confirming facility checks, outstanding issues, and next-event tasks. Independent venue operators continue to use the handover sheet, and event organizers can trace the receipt time of each issue.
Original contributions
The spatial status form connects facility checks with next event tasks, and external venues' instructions on handover methods have been adopted. Status handover is a routine operational foundation; significant originality requires separate proof of specific new rules and broader professional impact, and the number of events or forms cannot substitute.
Difficulties and evidence
The original space handover form focused on internal achievements; the key is to supplement external adoption and evaluation before submission. Based on background, select original professional methods, actual evaluation of peers' work, reports specifically about the individual, and key roles, and separately explain the external value of 'handing over venue spatial status together with next event tasks' from the individual's job responsibilities; peer review is verified by object and performance, and ordinary membership and event participation do not count as review.
Key points of the materials
Original contributions: the space handover form for 'handing over venue spatial status together with next event tasks', facility check samples, and external venue adoption records, separately explaining the individual's practices and adoption or verification, actual review: original invitations, objects, selection basis, and completion records for evaluating peer work related to exhibition venue management, not substituting participation for review, media reports: original report texts, authors, and publication dates specifically about the individual's professional work in exhibition venue management; distinguish personal work reports from institutional promotion, key or leading role: appointment as exhibition services technology partner, specific decision-making responsibilities in exhibition venue management, and professional reputation materials of the institution, high income: personal salary or service remuneration of the exhibition services technology partner, tax records, and comparison with peers in the same location and position; company income is not personal income.
Case highlights
Venue management talent must clearly explain the work methods they created and evidence of peer use.
Association membership
Media coverage
Industry review
Leadership
High income
EB-1ABusinessApplicant in China
Human Resources Services Technology Partner, EB-1A ApprovedHow skill platforms prove ability to do rather than just answer questions
Approved on September 24, 2026, applying from within China. Filed May 15, 2024, regular processing, took about 28.3 months, no requests for evidence.
The HR technology partner has long worked with trainers and employers and often reviews feedback on actual operations after onboarding. The starting point is daily job work; the responsibility records in the task-scoring design are incomplete. Those who pass the platform written test still cannot handle common exceptions after starting the job, and employers begin to doubt whether the certification reflects ability. After jointly reviewing the origin of the plan and their own responsibilities…
The HR technology partner has long worked with trainers and employers and often reviews feedback on actual operations after onboarding. The starting point is daily job work; the responsibility records in the task-scoring design are incomplete. Those who pass the platform written test still cannot handle common exceptions after starting the job, and employers begin to doubt whether the certification reflects ability. After jointly reviewing the origin of the plan and their own responsibilities, the person split job tasks into operational evidence and situational judgment, designed scoring calibration and employer follow-up visits, and clarified the scope of application of the certificate. An independent training institution adopted the task-scoring structure, and employer feedback helped correct items that did not apply.
Original contributions
The approach proposed by the person is to validate skill assessment through task performance and scoring consistency; adoption by external institutions and scoring research can support the value of the method, and the platform certificate should not be described as an official qualification.
Difficulties and evidence
Validating skill assessment through task performance and scoring consistency involves collaboration among multiple people, and it is necessary to distinguish the person's own decisions from routine execution in the task-scoring design. "Validating skill assessment through task performance and scoring consistency" cannot rest on the person's own account alone; it must be corroborated with original technical or business methods, reporting on the person's professional work, and key or leading roles; patents or registrations are only evidence of the method, and major significance is assessed separately based on actual adoption and evaluation.
Key points of the materials
Original contributions: the task-scoring design, scoring calibration samples, and citations by external training institutions for "validating skill assessment through task performance and scoring consistency," separately explaining the person's approach and the adoption or verification status; software copyright: the pre-existing registration related to the skill certification service platform, the version and the person's requirements, rules, or product design responsibilities; registration alone does not prove major significance; external application: citations by external training institutions and employer follow-up opinions, explaining why the adopting parties chose it, how they use it, and the verifiable scope; media reports: the body text, authors, and publication dates of pre-existing reports on the person's professional work on the skill certification service platform; distinguish reporting on the person's work from institutional publicity; key or leading role: the appointment as HR services technology partner, the specific decision-making responsibilities in the skill certification service platform, and materials on the professional reputation of the institution where the person works
Case highlights
Skill certification talent should demonstrate that the assessment method is effective and in use, not pile up the number of certificates issued.
Software copyright
Original contributions
Third-party adoption
Media coverage
Leadership
EB-1AEducationApplicant in China
Computer education assessment project lead, EB-1A approvedHow computational thinking measures reasoning rather than operational proficiency
Approved September 23, 2026, applying from within China. Filed September 11, 2026, premium processing with the case, took 12 days, no requests for evidence.
The computer education assessment lead grew from classroom research and often discusses with teachers the choices behind students' programming work. The starting point is daily job work; the responsibility records in the combined task design are incomplete. Work that runs does not mean the student understands the rules; some students complete tasks by copying code, and the original scoring cannot tell the difference. While completing work records with project support staff…
The computer education assessment lead grew from classroom research and often discusses with teachers the choices behind students' programming work. The starting point is daily job work; the responsibility records in the combined task design are incomplete. Work that runs does not mean the student understands the rules; some students complete tasks by copying code, and the original scoring cannot tell the difference. While completing work records with project support staff, the person designed combined tasks of device-free reasoning, program prediction, and error explanation, and established calibratable performance levels. An independent curriculum team adopted the combined tasks, and research records tested their distinction from operational proficiency.
Original contributions
The approach proposed by the person is to distinguish computational reasoning from operational performance through prediction and error explanation; external adoption and independent validity research can support the contribution, and programming competition results cannot replace validation of the tool itself.
Difficulties and evidence
The existing combined task design does not fully explain the part of "distinguishing computational reasoning from operational performance through prediction and error explanation" for which the person was responsible. This case keeps original education or assessment methods, professional publications, actual educational review, and key roles as the focus of the materials; the formation, adoption, and the person's responsibilities for "distinguishing computational reasoning from operational performance through prediction and error explanation" are proven separately, and review and awards are different facts that must be evidenced according to actual duties performed.
Key points of the materials
Original contributions: the combined task design, scoring levels and anchor examples, and external curriculum citations for "distinguishing computational reasoning from operational performance through prediction and error explanation," separately explaining the person's approach and the adoption or verification status; actual educational review: invitations to review peer courses, research, or projects related to computational thinking assessment, the subjects reviewed, and records of actual duties performed; professional articles: author attribution, body text, and nature of the publication of pre-existing papers or professional articles related to computational thinking assessment; distinguish from teaching or project publicity; citations and professional influence: the original text and context in which others use or discuss the computational thinking assessment method; major significance cannot be inferred from citation counts alone; key or leading role: the appointment as computer education assessment project lead, the specific decision-making responsibilities in computational thinking assessment, and materials on the professional reputation of the institution where the person works; independent evaluation: the professional background of pre-existing recommenders, their relationship with the person, and the facts they witnessed firsthand, cross-checked with independent validity research
Case highlights
Computational thinking talent should explain what the assessment measures and the validation results in different settings.
Educational review
Papers
Citations
Leadership
Independent recommenders
Premium
2025approved · 168 cases
2024approved · 120 cases
2023approved · 97 cases
2022approved · 78 cases
2021approved · 64 cases
2020approved · 38 cases
2019approved · 38 cases
2018approved · 31 cases
2017approved · 4 cases
20 cases per page; filters and search cover all 803 cases
No cases match the current filters. You can reduce the filters or use a shorter keyword.No cases match these filters. Remove a filter or try a shorter search term.
These cases come from TOP EASIER and the law firms we work with.These cases come from TOP EASIER and the law firms we work with.
Didn't get selected in the H-1B lottery—can I still stay in the U.S. to work?
Yes. The common route is the O-1 visa: it has no lottery, and it looks at the applicant's achievements in their field plus a genuine U.S. job offer. In our files there are 33 cases filed after an H-1B was not selected, all of them through O-1, mostly graduates who completed a master's or doctorate in the U.S.
Can I apply for an O-1 while waiting for my green card priority date?
Yes. The O-1 is a nonimmigrant work visa and runs on a separate track from an already filed EB-1A or NIW; a temporary work petition does not change the existing priority date. In our files there are 52 cases filed while waiting for a priority date, 51 of them O-1.
Without papers, can I apply for EB-1A based on works, competition results or business performance?
Yes. Among the ten EB-1A criteria, publications are only one; in the arts, sports and business, what counts are awards, representative works, media coverage, key roles and high income. In our files there are 125 EB-1A approvals that did not rely on publications, including 34 in the arts and 42 in business.
After completing a master's or doctorate in the U.S., what should I prepare for an NIW?
Publications, citations and peer-review records are the foundation; the key is to write separately about the research already completed and the work to be done in the U.S. in the future, making clear the value of the proposed work to the U.S. and whether you can advance it. In our files there are 197 NIW cases from U.S. graduates, both master's and doctoral.
Can I apply for EB-1A directly while in China?
Yes, no U.S. employer sponsorship is required. Applicants in China should clearly describe their plans after arriving in the U.S., and the evidence should let an officer who has never met the applicant understand who achieved what, separating individual contributions from institutional results. In our files there are 194 EB-1A cases filed from China.
Can I still be approved after receiving a Request for Evidence (RFE)?
Yes. An RFE is the officer asking for additional evidence, not a denial. In our files all 112 cases that received an RFE were ultimately approved; the key is to respond point by point to the RFE letter, adding evidence rather than explanations.
How long does Premium Processing take?
EB-1A and O-1 can be expedited; USCIS promises a response within 15 business days; NIW expedited processing is 45 business days. In our files there are 408 expedited filings. Expediting only shortens processing time and does not affect the adjudication standards.
If my application was denied at another firm, can I apply again?
Yes. A denial does not prevent refiling, but you must first understand why the previous one was denied and reorganize the evidence, rather than resubmitting it as is. In our files there are 20 cases that were denied elsewhere, redone by us and approved.
Are these cases real?
The cases come from TOP EASIER and its partner law firms; names, organizations and identifying information have been removed, while the industry and direction are retained. Individual results do not represent a promise for other applications.
Found one that looks like you?Found one that looks like you?
Free assessmentFree assessment
Take the free assessment and see whether your evidence holds. ImmiClaw drafts the report at once; a planner reviews it and gives the conclusion. Sign only after it passes.Take the free assessment and see whether your evidence holds. ImmiClaw drafts the report at once; a planner reviews it and gives the conclusion. Sign only after it passes.
IMMITONG is an information technology and document assistance platform. Unless explicitly provided by licensed attorneys/law firms, we do not offer legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed. Outcomes are subject to adjudicator discretion; no results are promised or guaranteed.
IMMITONG is an information technology and document assistance platform. Unless explicitly provided by licensed attorneys/law firms, we do not offer legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed. Outcomes are subject to adjudicator discretion; no results are promised or guaranteed.
