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 1911–1920
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
ten years full-time experience (employer letters)
Why AAO was not persuaded
Evidence of company ownership does not satisfy the plain language of this criterion, which requires employer letters. The Petitioner also failed to show the organization was actively doing business or describe his role, and declined to provide evidence from other employers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Evidence of company ownership does not satisfy the plain language of this criterion, which requires employer letters. The Petitioner also failed to show the organization was actively doing business or describe his role, and declined to provide evidence from other employers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_03_B5203; source_row=42329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
NIW National Importance – Broader Implications
Why AAO was not persuaded
Even assuming no material change, the Petitioner still failed to establish the national importance of his endeavor, as the record does not show that his work would lead to broader implications beyond the immediate benefit provided to his prospective employers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Even assuming no material change, the Petitioner still failed to establish the national importance of his endeavor, as the record does not show that his work would lead to broader implications beyond the immediate benefit provided to his prospective employers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_07_B5203; source_row=42346 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen – New Facts
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's revised endeavor statement submitted on a prior motion was a material change from the original petition, and the current motion again failed to establish new facts. The Petitioner's original submission described working as an aircraft maintenance specialist troubleshooting and repairing aircraft for U.S.…
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 revised endeavor statement submitted on a prior motion was a material change from the original petition, and the current motion again failed to establish new facts. The Petitioner's original submission described working as an aircraft maintenance specialist troubleshooting and repairing aircraft for U.S. companies, while the later statement described revolutionizing the industry through sustainable practices and reducing ecological footprint — a fundamentally different endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_07_B5203; source_row=42344 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider – Legal/Policy Error
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, as merely broadly disagreeing with AAO's conclusions does not satisfy the reconsideration standard.
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 did not demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, as merely broadly disagreeing with AAO's conclusions does not satisfy the reconsideration standard.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_07_B5203; source_row=42345 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with Petitioner that it was difficult to discern what specific evidence the Director considered, finding the analysis too vague, and remanded for re-examination of claims and all submitted evidence.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with Petitioner that it was difficult to discern what specific evidence the Director considered, finding the analysis too vague, and remanded for re-examination of claims and all submitted evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_01_B2203; source_row=42307 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
What the decision said
AAO agreed with Petitioner that the Director's interpretation was contrary to USCIS policy; a credible job offer showing prospective wages may establish a petitioner's ability to command a high salary, and remanded for re-examination of submitted evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with Petitioner that the Director's interpretation was contrary to USCIS policy; a credible job offer showing prospective wages may establish a petitioner's ability to command a high salary, and remanded for re-examination of submitted evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_01_B2203; source_row=42309 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 found the Director's analysis legally incorrect for requiring a role for an entire organization when USCIS policy allows for a division or department, and agreed the Director lacked specific discussion of the voluminous evidence submitted; remanded for re-evaluation.
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's analysis legally incorrect for requiring a role for an entire organization when USCIS policy allows for a division or department, and agreed the Director lacked specific discussion of the voluminous evidence submitted; remanded for re-evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_01_B2203; source_row=42308 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published materials
What the decision said
AAO found the Director did not fully review the evidence and provided insufficient explanation for blanket rejection of submitted materials; remanded for re-evaluation.
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 did not fully review the evidence and provided insufficient explanation for blanket rejection of submitted materials; remanded for re-evaluation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-12_01_B2203; source_row=42306 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's unsupported revenue and staffing projections, general industry articles that do not speak to his specific endeavor, letters of support and an expert opinion letter focused on his skills rather than the endeavor's broader impact, and claims of job creation without corroborating evidence all fail to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed work rises 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 +
AAO found that the Petitioner's unsupported revenue and staffing projections, general industry articles that do not speak to his specific endeavor, letters of support and an expert opinion letter focused on his skills rather than the endeavor's broader impact, and claims of job creation without corroborating evidence all fail to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed work rises to national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-11_08_B5203; source_row=42303 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c