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 1571–1580
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in passing that the aggregate record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in passing that the aggregate record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=42840 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion relating to a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion relating to a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-28_01_B2203; source_row=42838 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While AAO accepted the endeavor had substantial merit in the area of business and entrepreneurialism, it found the Petitioner failed to show the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor.…
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 +
While AAO accepted the endeavor had substantial merit in the area of business and entrepreneurialism, it found the Petitioner failed to show the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. The documentation addressed broad industry topics rather than the national importance of her particular company and services, the expert letter did not explain broader implications for the country, and the business plan's revenue and job creation projections were unsupported and insufficient to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at a national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-27_02_B5203; source_row=42832 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's appellate argument did not address the Director's finding that comparative average salary data was inadequate or that evidence related to other professions was irrelevant.
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 appellate argument did not address the Director's finding that comparative average salary data was inadequate or that evidence related to other professions was irrelevant.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-27_02_B2203; source_row=42829 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 agreed that substantial merit was shown but national importance was not. The Petitioner's reliance on the employer's market share and size, generalized assertions about broader applicability, and letters of recommendation that praised the Beneficiary's internal contributions without explaining field-wide impact were insufficient.…
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 substantial merit was shown but national importance was not. The Petitioner's reliance on the employer's market share and size, generalized assertions about broader applicability, and letters of recommendation that praised the Beneficiary's internal contributions without explaining field-wide impact were insufficient. Merely working in an important field or for a large employer is not enough to establish national importance of the specific endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-27_01_B5203; source_row=42823 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
adequacy of motion decision explanation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Director's decision failed to apply the distinct regulatory provisions for motions to reopen versus motions to reconsider, mischaracterized the RFE response by stating the petitioner submitted 'no evidence,' and did not address the motion evidence or supporting brief.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Director's decision failed to apply the distinct regulatory provisions for motions to reopen versus motions to reconsider, mischaracterized the RFE response by stating the petitioner submitted 'no evidence,' and did not address the motion evidence or supporting brief.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-27_01_B2203; source_row=42822 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner had not demonstrated the impact of his purported special technique on the field as a whole, analogizing to the Visinscaia decision. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to label or explain how the cited evidence supported his claims, leaving AAO unable to confidently locate the referenced evidence.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner had not demonstrated the impact of his purported special technique on the field as a whole, analogizing to the Visinscaia decision. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to label or explain how the cited evidence supported his claims, leaving AAO unable to confidently locate the referenced evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-27_02_B2203; source_row=42827 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner could not raise this criterion for the first time on appeal under Matter of Furtado. Even if he could, the appellate brief contained only bare assertions without corroborating evidence, and the Petitioner did not describe the approval process for acceptance in the organization.
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 could not raise this criterion for the first time on appeal under Matter of Furtado. Even if he could, the appellate brief contained only bare assertions without corroborating evidence, and the Petitioner did not describe the approval process for acceptance in the organization.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-27_02_B2203; source_row=42826 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c