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 1011–1020
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that neither the letter from the co-founder (who did not state whether the Petitioner worked full time) nor the letter from the Petitioner's own accountant (who was his employee, not employer) satisfied the plain-language requirements of the criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director, finding that neither the letter from the co-founder (who did not state whether the Petitioner worked full time) nor the letter from the Petitioner's own accountant (who was his employee, not employer) satisfied the plain-language requirements of the criterion. AAO withdrew the Director's finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-28_06_B5203; source_row=43744 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO remanded because the Chief did not analyze the Petitioner's evidence distinguishing the management company from the NCE and provided insufficient specificity under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i); the Chief should also weigh the SEC fraud allegations on remand.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO remanded because the Chief did not analyze the Petitioner's evidence distinguishing the management company from the NCE and provided insufficient specificity under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i); the Chief should also weigh the SEC fraud allegations on remand.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-28_04_B5203; source_row=43741 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO remanded because the Chief did not adequately explain how Matter of Izummi (a regional center holding-company case) applies to this pooled-investment NCE, and the cited inconsistencies bear more on business-plan credibility under Matter of Ho.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO remanded because the Chief did not adequately explain how Matter of Izummi (a regional center holding-company case) applies to this pooled-investment NCE, and the cited inconsistencies bear more on business-plan credibility under Matter of Ho.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-28_04_B5203; source_row=43740 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found the Petitioner failed to show his specific consulting venture would operate on a scale of national importance. The business plan's projection of 14 cumulative jobs by year five lacked sufficient basis and did not demonstrate impact beyond the business's immediate area of operations. General claims about environmental compliance, trade balance, and job creation were unsubstantiated.
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 Petitioner failed to show his specific consulting venture would operate on a scale of national importance. The business plan's projection of 14 cumulative jobs by year five lacked sufficient basis and did not demonstrate impact beyond the business's immediate area of operations. General claims about environmental compliance, trade balance, and job creation were unsubstantiated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_01_B5203; source_row=43697 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's documented earnings exceeded the average but fell below the 'high' salary range in most surveys submitted. The Petitioner's 50% threshold argument lacked evidentiary support, the salary data comparisons were of questionable validity, and no contemporaneous 2015 comparative salary data was provided.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner's documented earnings exceeded the average but fell below the 'high' salary range in most surveys submitted. The Petitioner's 50% threshold argument lacked evidentiary support, the salary data comparisons were of questionable validity, and no contemporaneous 2015 comparative salary data was provided.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_03_B2203; source_row=43711 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that she failed the first element (leading or critical role), that issue was waived. On the distinguished reputation element, AAO found that self-attesting company letters and general website information were insufficient; the Petitioner also failed to distinguish her employer from the ~13,000 similar lottery houses in Brazil.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding that she failed the first element (leading or critical role), that issue was waived. On the distinguished reputation element, AAO found that self-attesting company letters and general website information were insufficient; the Petitioner also failed to distinguish her employer from the ~13,000 similar lottery houses in Brazil.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_03_B2203; source_row=43710 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Enrollment in Brazil's regional psychology councils is compulsory for anyone wishing to practice as a professional psychologist, not reserved for those with outstanding achievements. The exclusion of persons with ethical violations does not transform the membership into one requiring outstanding achievement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Enrollment in Brazil's regional psychology councils is compulsory for anyone wishing to practice as a professional psychologist, not reserved for those with outstanding achievements. The exclusion of persons with ethical violations does not transform the membership into one requiring outstanding achievement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_03_B2203; source_row=43707 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the association requires its members to possess the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, meaning it does not qualify as a professional association within the meaning of the regulations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the association requires its members to possess the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, meaning it does not qualify as a professional association within the meaning of the regulations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_04_B5203; source_row=43722 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Previdentiary Extract, income statements, and professional experience statements lacked corroboration from independent objective evidence such as invoices, bank statements, or tax returns. The Salario BR screenshot lacked critical information to verify reliability. Furthermore, comparing sales consultant earnings to managing partner income is an improper basis for comparison as they are distinct occupations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Previdentiary Extract, income statements, and professional experience statements lacked corroboration from independent objective evidence such as invoices, bank statements, or tax returns. The Salario BR screenshot lacked critical information to verify reliability. Furthermore, comparing sales consultant earnings to managing partner income is an improper basis for comparison as they are distinct occupations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_04_B5203; source_row=43721 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner did not explain how a government-issued card constitutes membership in a professional association, nor did she establish that obtaining the card required demonstrating outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts. The relevant law only required proof of qualification for the profession.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner did not explain how a government-issued card constitutes membership in a professional association, nor did she establish that obtaining the card required demonstrating outstanding achievement as judged by recognized experts. The relevant law only required proof of qualification for the profession.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-03-27_01_B2203; source_row=43692 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c