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 1891–1900
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO partially disagreed with the Director, finding substantial merit was established (withdrawing the Director's contrary finding) but agreeing that national importance was not demonstrated. The projected economic impact was insufficiently evidenced and too small-scale; the National Security Strategy reference was too remote from the specific endeavor to establish 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 +
AAO partially disagreed with the Director, finding substantial merit was established (withdrawing the Director's contrary finding) but agreeing that national importance was not demonstrated. The projected economic impact was insufficiently evidenced and too small-scale; the National Security Strategy reference was too remote from the specific endeavor to establish national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-13_02_B5203; source_row=42354 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's business plan lacked revenue forecasts, staffing models, or financial forecasts to demonstrate actual economic impact, and that the record did not show the endeavor's prospective impact extended beyond her proposed clientele to affect the advertising and marketing field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 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 +
AAO found that the Petitioner's business plan lacked revenue forecasts, staffing models, or financial forecasts to demonstrate actual economic impact, and that the record did not show the endeavor's prospective impact extended beyond her proposed clientele to affect the advertising and marketing field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_01_B5203; source_row=42310 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner established substantial merit (partial disagreement with director) but not national importance: the business plan lacked supporting details for its financial projections, and even accepting those projections, creating 19 jobs and $1.5 million in revenue did not demonstrate nationally significant prospective impact.
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 Petitioner established substantial merit (partial disagreement with director) but not national importance: the business plan lacked supporting details for its financial projections, and even accepting those projections, creating 19 jobs and $1.5 million in revenue did not demonstrate nationally significant prospective impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_02_B5203; source_row=42319 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director on substantial merit, finding the endeavor falls within areas such as business and entrepreneurialism contemplated by Dhanasar. However, AAO agreed the endeavor fails on national importance: the Petitioner did not show how his company would broadly influence the field, the business plan projections lacked corroborating support, and a mere labor shortage in the aviation sector does not render…
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 disagreed with the Director on substantial merit, finding the endeavor falls within areas such as business and entrepreneurialism contemplated by Dhanasar. However, AAO agreed the endeavor fails on national importance: the Petitioner did not show how his company would broadly influence the field, the business plan projections lacked corroborating support, and a mere labor shortage in the aviation sector does not render the specific endeavor nationally important.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_05_B5203; source_row=42341 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner established only that his company received remuneration, but failed to provide comparative evidence showing these payments represent exceptional ability relative to others in his field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner established only that his company received remuneration, but failed to provide comparative evidence showing these payments represent exceptional ability relative to others in his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_03_B5203; source_row=42331 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
The Glassdoor evidence was published after the petition filing date and therefore could not be used to establish eligibility at the time of filing. Additionally, the evidence did not show the relevant salary range for the periods of employment, making it insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's salary was high compared to others in her field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Glassdoor evidence was published after the petition filing date and therefore could not be used to establish eligibility at the time of filing. Additionally, the evidence did not show the relevant salary range for the periods of employment, making it insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's salary was high compared to others in her field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_02_B2203; source_row=42317 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 employer letters explained the Petitioner's roles and responsibilities but did not sufficiently demonstrate how her work was an original contribution to her field or of major significance. The described activities assisted the company but lacked details showing originality or major significance to the overall field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The employer letters explained the Petitioner's roles and responsibilities but did not sufficiently demonstrate how her work was an original contribution to her field or of major significance. The described activities assisted the company but lacked details showing originality or major significance to the overall field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_02_B2203; source_row=42315 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
Training certificates reflect completion of training rather than prizes or awards. The employer letters describing the Employee of the Year and Employee Referral awards lacked detail on the awards' criteria, national or international significance, number of recipients, or limitations on competitors. The employer's website showed a portfolio of companies but provided no further information.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Training certificates reflect completion of training rather than prizes or awards. The employer letters describing the Employee of the Year and Employee Referral awards lacked detail on the awards' criteria, national or international significance, number of recipients, or limitations on competitors. The employer's website showed a portfolio of companies but provided no further information. Unsupported contentions do not constitute evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_02_B2203; source_row=42313 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment
Why AAO was not persuaded
The employer letters showed the Petitioner was a good employee but did not adequately convey how her position as a senior sales representative was leading or critical to the company. Additionally, the evidence failed to demonstrate the company has a distinguished reputation, as the letters and website only described the company's portfolio without providing information about its reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The employer letters showed the Petitioner was a good employee but did not adequately convey how her position as a senior sales representative was leading or critical to the company. Additionally, the evidence failed to demonstrate the company has a distinguished reputation, as the letters and website only described the company's portfolio without providing information about its reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_02_B2203; source_row=42316 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c