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.
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's determination, finding the record as a whole does not establish exceptional ability. The Petitioner failed to show how her qualifications set her apart from other entrepreneurs in agriculture and did not demonstrate impact beyond her clients indicative of significant contributions to the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's determination, finding the record as a whole does not establish exceptional ability. The Petitioner failed to show how her qualifications set her apart from other entrepreneurs in agriculture and did not demonstrate impact beyond her clients indicative of significant contributions to the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_04_B5203; source_row=42670 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
Substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO reserved this prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification, making it unnecessary to reach the NIW analysis.
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 reserved this prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification, making it unnecessary to reach the NIW analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_04_B5203; source_row=42671 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
What the decision said
AAO declined to review the Director's favorable determination for the leading or critical role criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to review the Director's favorable determination for the leading or critical role criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_02_B2203; source_row=42664 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
Original Contributions
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach this criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless, rendering it unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach this criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the minimum of three criteria regardless, rendering it unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_02_B2203; source_row=42663 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 formally reserved the final merits determination as unnecessary given the Petitioner's failure to meet the initial evidence threshold, but noted in the aggregate the record 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 formally reserved the final merits determination as unnecessary given the Petitioner's failure to meet the initial evidence threshold, but noted in the aggregate the record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_02_B2203; source_row=42665 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Minimum education requirement (single-source foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The academic equivalency evaluation incorrectly concluded the two-year postgraduate diploma alone equals a U.S. bachelor's degree. The AACRAO EDGE source cited by the evaluator actually states the postgraduate diploma is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree only when following a three-year bachelor's degree, not as a single-source equivalent. The evaluation is therefore discounted.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The academic equivalency evaluation incorrectly concluded the two-year postgraduate diploma alone equals a U.S. bachelor's degree. The AACRAO EDGE source cited by the evaluator actually states the postgraduate diploma is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree only when following a three-year bachelor's degree, not as a single-source equivalent. The evaluation is therefore discounted.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_02_B5203; source_row=42667 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years post-baccalaureate experience (substantially comparable position analysis)
What the decision said
AAO flagged that the Director should review whether the Beneficiary's prior experience with the petitioning employer in the advisory senior consultant role was 'substantially comparable' to the advisory manager position under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3), and instructed the Director to request additional information if needed on remand.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO flagged that the Director should review whether the Beneficiary's prior experience with the petitioning employer in the advisory senior consultant role was 'substantially comparable' to the advisory manager position under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3), and instructed the Director to request additional information if needed on remand.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_02_B5203; source_row=42668 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Director applied the wrong standard ('same exact position' rather than 'same or similar') and that the record shows no material change in the job opportunity requiring a new labor certification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director applied the wrong standard ('same exact position' rather than 'same or similar') and that the record shows no material change in the job opportunity requiring a new labor certification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_02_B5203; source_row=42666 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reserved consideration of this criterion because the Petitioner failed the awards criterion and could not meet the minimum three criteria regardless of findings on judging.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved consideration of this criterion because the Petitioner failed the awards criterion and could not meet the minimum three criteria regardless of findings on judging.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-01-14_01_B2203; source_row=42654 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c