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 10811–10820
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the Petitioner's proposed residential construction work has substantial merit, he failed to show that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance.…
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the Petitioner's proposed residential construction work has substantial merit, he failed to show that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner's activities are localized to Florida, the claimed job creation was not adequately documented (e.g., it is implausible that six residential homes required two ongoing land surveyors), and there was insufficient evidence of substantial positive economic effects for the region or nation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_01_B5203; source_row=28554 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the credential evaluation did not analyze the Petitioner's specific foreign education and the AACRAO EDGE database indicated her degree was equivalent only to a U.S. bachelor's. Additionally, her degree was awarded in January 2015 and the petition was filed in August 2018, leaving less than five years of possible post-baccalaureate experience, precluding the alternative advanced degree showing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the credential evaluation did not analyze the Petitioner's specific foreign education and the AACRAO EDGE database indicated her degree was equivalent only to a U.S. bachelor's. Additionally, her degree was awarded in January 2015 and the petition was filed in August 2018, leaving less than five years of possible post-baccalaureate experience, precluding the alternative advanced degree showing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_05_B5203; source_row=28572 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 Petitioner waived the national importance issue by not challenging it on appeal. AAO also independently agreed the endeavor lacked national importance, as it would not broadly impact U.S. healthcare interests or provide substantial positive economic effects, analogous to the teaching activities found insufficient in Dhanasar itself.
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 Petitioner waived the national importance issue by not challenging it on appeal. AAO also independently agreed the endeavor lacked national importance, as it would not broadly impact U.S. healthcare interests or provide substantial positive economic effects, analogous to the teaching activities found insufficient in Dhanasar itself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_02_B5203; source_row=28563 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's expertise and training relate to the second prong but that, because the proposed endeavor itself was not sufficiently identified, it was impossible to conclude that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's expertise and training relate to the second prong but that, because the proposed endeavor itself was not sufficiently identified, it was impossible to conclude that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_03_B5203; source_row=28567 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to clearly identify a specific proposed endeavor, noting he presented background information on a variety of distinct IT occupations without specifying whether his proposed work involves consulting, developing, engineering, managing, or some combination. Without a sufficiently identified endeavor, neither its merit nor its national importance can be assessed.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to clearly identify a specific proposed endeavor, noting he presented background information on a variety of distinct IT occupations without specifying whether his proposed work involves consulting, developing, engineering, managing, or some combination. Without a sufficiently identified endeavor, neither its merit nor its national importance can be assessed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_03_B5203; source_row=28566 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in certain media
What the decision said
AAO noted that the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding on this criterion and did not offer additional arguments on appeal, so the issue is considered abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted that the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding on this criterion and did not offer additional arguments on appeal, so the issue is considered abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_02_B2203; source_row=28559 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved this criterion as unnecessary to reach, because the Petitioner could not satisfy the threshold requirement of meeting at least three criteria regardless of the outcome on this prong.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved this criterion as unnecessary to reach, because the Petitioner could not satisfy the threshold requirement of meeting at least three criteria regardless of the outcome on this prong.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_02_B2203; source_row=28561 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 Petitioner proposed many vague ideas for IT work without identifying a specific endeavor. His past successes benefited individual employers and clients but did not demonstrate broader field-level or national impact. Recommendation letters and the expert opinion letter were conclusory and insufficiently corroborated.
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 Petitioner proposed many vague ideas for IT work without identifying a specific endeavor. His past successes benefited individual employers and clients but did not demonstrate broader field-level or national impact. Recommendation letters and the expert opinion letter were conclusory and insufficiently corroborated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-09-13_04_B5203; source_row=28569 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c