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 1521–1530
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the endeavor
What the decision said
AAO did not address prong two, having resolved the appeal on prong one grounds.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not address prong two, having resolved the appeal on prong one grounds.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-31_02_B5203; source_row=42920 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
motion to reconsider - error of law or policy
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO properly declined to consider new evidence on appeal under Matter of Soriano, the ineffective-assistance claim is unsupported, and the Petitioner does not specify what law or policy was incorrectly applied.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO properly declined to consider new evidence on appeal under Matter of Soriano, the ineffective-assistance claim is unsupported, and the Petitioner does not specify what law or policy was incorrectly applied.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-31_02_B2203; source_row=42911 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
motion to reopen - new facts
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new evidence and ineffective-assistance claims do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2); the affidavit contains unresolved discrepancies, O-T- explicitly identified herself as a non-attorney, and the additional evidence on the membership, published-material, and judging criteria is insufficient to change the outcome.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new evidence and ineffective-assistance claims do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2); the affidavit contains unresolved discrepancies, O-T- explicitly identified herself as a non-attorney, and the additional evidence on the membership, published-material, and judging criteria is insufficient to change the outcome.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-31_02_B2203; source_row=42910 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
participation as a judge of the work of others in the field
What the decision said
AAO reserved this issue under Bagamasbad because even if met, Petitioner would have only two criteria, short of the required three. AAO also flagged numerous unresolved inconsistencies between the original refereeing book and its translation that undermine the evidence.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved this issue under Bagamasbad because even if met, Petitioner would have only two criteria, short of the required three. AAO also flagged numerous unresolved inconsistencies between the original refereeing book and its translation that undermine the evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-31_02_B2203; source_row=42915 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to fully reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-1 threshold of three criteria. However, AAO noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not show the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to fully reach the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-1 threshold of three criteria. However, AAO noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not show the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-31_01_B2203; source_row=42909 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c