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 1881–1890
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reviewed the aggregate record and found it does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The formal Kazarian step-2 analysis was reserved, but AAO made the equivalent finding as an alternate basis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the aggregate record and found it does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The formal Kazarian step-2 analysis was reserved, but AAO made the equivalent finding as an alternate basis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-16_02_B2203; source_row=42370 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
The four recommendation letters praised the petitioner's work but limited its significance to his employers rather than demonstrating impact on the overall field. The letters did not elaborate on how employer-level projects translated into contributions of major significance in the broader field, and AAO found them to be primarily conclusory.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The four recommendation letters praised the petitioner's work but limited its significance to his employers rather than demonstrating impact on the overall field. The letters did not elaborate on how employer-level projects translated into contributions of major significance in the broader field, and AAO found them to be primarily conclusory.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-16_02_B2203; source_row=42367 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that while the Petitioner cited broad national topics and initiatives, he failed to demonstrate how his specific entrepreneurial endeavor in the Florida area would have broader implications rising to the level of national importance.…
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 while the Petitioner cited broad national topics and initiatives, he failed to demonstrate how his specific entrepreneurial endeavor in the Florida area would have broader implications rising to the level of national importance. The business plan's revenue projections ($184K year 1 to $1.2M year 5) and employment projections (4 to 14 positions) were unsubstantiated and not shown to provide substantial positive economic effects nationally or regionally. The new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered because the Petitioner had prior notice and opportunity to submit it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-16_03_B5203; source_row=42374 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved consideration of this criterion because even if it were satisfied, the Petitioner would still not meet the minimum of three required criteria, making the analysis unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved consideration of this criterion because even if it were satisfied, the Petitioner would still not meet the minimum of three required criteria, making the analysis unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-16_01_B2203; source_row=42364 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award
What the decision said
The Director determined the Petitioner did not show receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. The Petitioner did not raise this ground on appeal, and AAO treated it as waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Director determined the Petitioner did not show receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. The Petitioner did not raise this ground on appeal, and AAO treated it as waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-16_02_B2203; source_row=42366 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 found that the Petitioner's varying descriptions of his endeavor and unsupported assertions about protecting consumers, creating jobs, and generating economic impact were insufficient to show that his specific proposed work would have prospective impact rising to the level of national importance, as opposed to merely working in an important field.
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 varying descriptions of his endeavor and unsupported assertions about protecting consumers, creating jobs, and generating economic impact were insufficient to show that his specific proposed work would have prospective impact rising to the level of national importance, as opposed to merely working in an important field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-13_01_B5203; source_row=42350 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found the Petitioner's credential evaluation conflicted with AACRAO EDGE, which characterizes her professional degree as comparable to only two to two-and-a-half years of U.S. post-secondary study rather than a full four-year bachelor's degree. The unresolved conflict in the record prevented the AAO from confirming the equivalency claim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found the Petitioner's credential evaluation conflicted with AACRAO EDGE, which characterizes her professional degree as comparable to only two to two-and-a-half years of U.S. post-secondary study rather than a full four-year bachelor's degree. The unresolved conflict in the record prevented the AAO from confirming the equivalency claim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-13_05_B5203; source_row=42357 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO agreed the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. While finding substantial merit, it concluded the business plan's projections (five jobs, $700K in salaries, $1.8M in tax revenue over five years) were insufficiently supported and did not rise to national importance.…
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 agreed the proposed endeavor lacked national importance. While finding substantial merit, it concluded the business plan's projections (five jobs, $700K in salaries, $1.8M in tax revenue over five years) were insufficiently supported and did not rise to national importance. Advisory opinions focused on field importance rather than the specific endeavor's prospective impact, and alignment with government sustainability initiatives alone was insufficient without quantifying the endeavor's specific prospective impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-13_05_B5203; source_row=42358 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c