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 1631–1640
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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed step one, but noted the record in the aggregate does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed step one, but noted the record in the aggregate does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-17_01_B2203; source_row=42734 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high remuneration for services
What the decision said
AAO noted the Director's error in stating no salary evidence was submitted, but reserved the issue because even if the criterion were met, the Petitioner already failed two of four claimed criteria and cannot reach the three-criterion minimum regardless.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted the Director's error in stating no salary evidence was submitted, but reserved the issue because even if the criterion were met, the Petitioner already failed two of four claimed criteria and cannot reach the three-criterion minimum regardless.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-17_01_B2203; source_row=42733 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
The AAO found that the business plan's job creation projections (23 employees over five years) lacked sufficient explanatory basis, and that even if accepted, the figures did not demonstrate operations at a nationally important scale. Broad assertions about cybersecurity and economic impact were not substantiated by evidence showing the endeavor would have implications beyond individual clients or the local area.
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 AAO found that the business plan's job creation projections (23 employees over five years) lacked sufficient explanatory basis, and that even if accepted, the figures did not demonstrate operations at a nationally important scale. Broad assertions about cybersecurity and economic impact were not substantiated by evidence showing the endeavor would have implications beyond individual clients or the local area.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-17_04_B5203; source_row=42742 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO found the Director did not adequately address the documentation in the record and did not fully explain the insufficiencies, warranting remand for proper analysis rather than a merits determination by AAO.
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 the Director did not adequately address the documentation in the record and did not fully explain the insufficiencies, warranting remand for proper analysis rather than a merits determination by AAO.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-17_03_B5203; source_row=42739 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO found the Director erred by not discussing the evidence weighed in the balancing analysis, not addressing the Petitioner's specific claims, and rendering an internally inconsistent conclusion regarding prong two that infected the prong three analysis.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director erred by not discussing the evidence weighed in the balancing analysis, not addressing the Petitioner's specific claims, and rendering an internally inconsistent conclusion regarding prong two that infected the prong three analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-17_03_B5203; source_row=42741 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO found the Director's analysis of the second prong internally contradictory and inadequate, as it did not clearly articulate whether the Petitioner's evidence satisfied the prong and did not address the specific evidence submitted.
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 the Director's analysis of the second prong internally contradictory and inadequate, as it did not clearly articulate whether the Petitioner's evidence satisfied the prong and did not address the specific evidence submitted.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-17_03_B5203; source_row=42740 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but fails the national importance element. Past experience does not speak to the prospective impact of the endeavor; unsupported financial projections cannot be credited; direct job creation of 12 jobs (11 part-time) is insufficient; indirect job claims lack adequate documentation; the company's footprint does not establish impact on economically depres…
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 the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but fails the national importance element. Past experience does not speak to the prospective impact of the endeavor; unsupported financial projections cannot be credited; direct job creation of 12 jobs (11 part-time) is insufficient; indirect job claims lack adequate documentation; the company's footprint does not establish impact on economically depressed areas; and the expert letter's focus on Brazil and Latin American trade does not align with the stated endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-16_01_B5203; source_row=42708 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c