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 10241–10250
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
What the decision said
The Petitioner's appellate brief did not address qualification under this criterion, so AAO deemed the issue waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's appellate brief did not address qualification under this criterion, so AAO deemed the issue waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-09_02_B5203; source_row=29344 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner submitted a diploma and certificate of completion granting the professional title of Data Processing Technician from a business school, satisfying the criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner submitted a diploma and certificate of completion granting the professional title of Data Processing Technician from a business school, satisfying the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-09_02_B5203; source_row=29341 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters of reference praised the Petitioner's work on behalf of his employer and clients but did not provide specific examples of recognition by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters of reference praised the Petitioner's work on behalf of his employer and clients but did not provide specific examples of recognition by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-09_02_B5203; source_row=29346 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
At least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation sought
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with Petitioner's argument that requiring duty descriptions was an elevated standard, affirming that the experience must be in the specific occupation sought (education administration). The employment letters describing executive positions without sufficient detail did not demonstrate full-time experience in education administration.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with Petitioner's argument that requiring duty descriptions was an elevated standard, affirming that the experience must be in the specific occupation sought (education administration). The employment letters describing executive positions without sufficient detail did not demonstrate full-time experience in education administration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-09_01_B5203; source_row=29333 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen — New Facts Requirement
Why AAO was not persuaded
All submitted documents were already in the record and introduced no new facts. The Petitioner's unsupported assertion that he submitted a timely brief was insufficient without a copy of the brief or proof of mailing, and even if accepted, would still not demonstrate that the appeal identified specific legal or factual errors as required.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
All submitted documents were already in the record and introduced no new facts. The Petitioner's unsupported assertion that he submitted a timely brief was insufficient without a copy of the brief or proof of mailing, and even if accepted, would still not demonstrate that the appeal identified specific legal or factual errors as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-06_01_B2203; source_row=29329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c