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.
Beneficiary's possession of minimum qualifying experience for the offered position
Why AAO was not persuaded
The first NOIR established that submitted employer letters covered only ~4 years 1 month of experience (less than the required 5 years), and the letter from the Indian college failed to describe the Beneficiary's duties. The second NOIR identified unresolved inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's start and end dates at the U.S. consulting company, undermining the claimed experience.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The first NOIR established that submitted employer letters covered only ~4 years 1 month of experience (less than the required 5 years), and the letter from the Indian college failed to describe the Beneficiary's duties. The second NOIR identified unresolved inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's start and end dates at the U.S. consulting company, undermining the claimed experience. Together, the documented experience fell short of five years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-22_01_B5203; source_row=27468 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Whether section 204(j) portability bars revocation under section 205
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held that portability under section 204(j) does not bar revocation because: (1) the provision only keeps a petition valid 'with respect to a new job,' not forevermore; (2) a petition must have been valid from the start to 'remain' valid, and this petition was never properly approved; and (3) Congress did not intend portability to shield erroneously approved petitions from revocation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that portability under section 204(j) does not bar revocation because: (1) the provision only keeps a petition valid 'with respect to a new job,' not forevermore; (2) a petition must have been valid from the start to 'remain' valid, and this petition was never properly approved; and (3) Congress did not intend portability to shield erroneously approved petitions from revocation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-22_01_B5203; source_row=27469 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's first-prong finding because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was inconsistent between the initial filing and the RFE response, constituting an impermissible material change.
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 withdrew the Director's first-prong finding because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was inconsistent between the initial filing and the RFE response, constituting an impermissible material change.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-22_03_B5203; source_row=27473 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that this criterion was met. The petitioner's teaching roles were not shown to be leading or critical, his professional society roles (including international coordinator) were not substantiated with evidence that the organizations have distinguished reputations, and an organization's reputation cannot be established through its own promotional materials or self-description.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that this criterion was met. The petitioner's teaching roles were not shown to be leading or critical, his professional society roles (including international coordinator) were not substantiated with evidence that the organizations have distinguished reputations, and an organization's reputation cannot be established through its own promotional materials or self-description.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_02_B2203; source_row=27460 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
Two of the named entities are registration boards rather than associations. For the remaining four, the petitioner either submitted no information about membership requirements (BIE, NSE) or did not demonstrate that the requirements (academic degrees, experience, licensure) constitute outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts (ASCE, SAICE).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Two of the named entities are registration boards rather than associations. For the remaining four, the petitioner either submitted no information about membership requirements (BIE, NSE) or did not demonstrate that the requirements (academic degrees, experience, licensure) constitute outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts (ASCE, SAICE).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_02_B2203; source_row=27455 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO independently weighed the totality of the evidence and concluded that the Beneficiary's publication record, recommendation letters, roles, and high salary do not collectively demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. AAO rejected the petitioner's claim that the Director had improperly viewed evidence in isolation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO independently weighed the totality of the evidence and concluded that the Beneficiary's publication record, recommendation letters, roles, and high salary do not collectively demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. AAO rejected the petitioner's claim that the Director had improperly viewed evidence in isolation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-04-21_03_B2203; source_row=27467 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c