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 2011–2020
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineerMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the individual in professional or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The five articles were published after the Petitioner left Russia, most in late 2023, show broad similarities consistent with promotional coverage, and there is no record of any media coverage while the Petitioner was in Russia.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The five articles were published after the Petitioner left Russia, most in late 2023, show broad similarities consistent with promotional coverage, and there is no record of any media coverage while the Petitioner was in Russia.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_02_B2203; source_row=42133 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
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's business plan projections were unsupported by details, the submitted articles addressed the general field rather than his specific endeavor, and his personal statements and business plan did not demonstrate that his consulting activities would operate at a scale or have prospective impact sufficient to 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 +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's business plan projections were unsupported by details, the submitted articles addressed the general field rather than his specific endeavor, and his personal statements and business plan did not demonstrate that his consulting activities would operate at a scale or have prospective impact sufficient to rise to national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_04_B5203; source_row=42153 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the master's degree post-dated the filing and the petitioner failed to demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience as of the filing date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the master's degree post-dated the filing and the petitioner failed to demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience as of the filing date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_07_B5203; source_row=42162 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agrees: the cryptocurrency focus is a material change that cannot be considered; tailored services to individual clients do not have the broader implications Dhanasar requires; the Petitioner failed to support staffing projections or show the company location is in an economically depressed area; and generalized STEM policy does not establish national importance of this specific endeavor.
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 agrees: the cryptocurrency focus is a material change that cannot be considered; tailored services to individual clients do not have the broader implications Dhanasar requires; the Petitioner failed to support staffing projections or show the company location is in an economically depressed area; and generalized STEM policy does not establish national importance of this specific endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_03_B5203; source_row=42150 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's evidence failed to show national importance. The support letter addressed only achievements aiding a specific client of her former employer; the article about her former employer did not speak to national or global field implications; the two industry articles addressed the importance of the field generally rather than her specific proposed endeavor; and the Petitioner did not explain how he…
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 agreed that the Petitioner's evidence failed to show national importance. The support letter addressed only achievements aiding a specific client of her former employer; the article about her former employer did not speak to national or global field implications; the two industry articles addressed the importance of the field generally rather than her specific proposed endeavor; and the Petitioner did not explain how her methods differ from or improve upon those already available in the United States.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_06_B5203; source_row=42159 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Director did not discuss the evidence considered in balancing the third prong factors, did not address the Petitioner's specific claims, and improperly required evidence of economic impact, which Dhanasar does not mandate.
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 did not discuss the evidence considered in balancing the third prong factors, did not address the Petitioner's specific claims, and improperly required evidence of economic impact, which Dhanasar does not mandate.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_05_B5203; source_row=42158 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Director's conclusion on national importance was inadequately explained — the Director did not apply any factors to the evidence or explain why it was insufficient, and did not explain how the evidence led to the determination.
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's conclusion on national importance was inadequately explained — the Director did not apply any factors to the evidence or explain why it was insufficient, and did not explain how the evidence led to the determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_05_B5203; source_row=42156 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Director failed to address a large portion of the submitted evidence, including an expert opinion and letters of support, and on remand must address all arguments and evidence with explanation of decisional weight.
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 failed to address a large portion of the submitted evidence, including an expert opinion and letters of support, and on remand must address all arguments and evidence with explanation of decisional weight.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_05_B5203; source_row=42157 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 reserved the formal final merits determination as unnecessary, given the Beneficiary did not meet three criteria, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not establish sustained national or international 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 formal final merits determination as unnecessary, given the Beneficiary did not meet three criteria, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_03_B2203; source_row=42147 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
EconomicsPhD
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO found the Director mischaracterized the proposed endeavor and did not meaningfully analyze national importance, requiring remand for a proper 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 found the Director mischaracterized the proposed endeavor and did not meaningfully analyze national importance, requiring remand for a proper analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-12-03_02_B5203; source_row=42139 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c