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 22601–22610
NIWNIW · National importanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherPhD
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
What the decision said
AAO did not separately address this prong, focusing its analysis on the third prong (national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker).
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 did not separately address this prong, focusing its analysis on the third prong (national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_01_B5203; source_row=15107 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherPhD
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found no objective confirmation that the petitioner's work had more impact than others in his field; witness opinions came only from close collaborators; eight citations were not shown to be unusually high; the Cancer Cell article was accepted after the filing date; peer review participation does not establish elevated standing; and unsupported counsel assertions carry no evidentiary weight.
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 no objective confirmation that the petitioner's work had more impact than others in his field; witness opinions came only from close collaborators; eight citations were not shown to be unusually high; the Cancer Cell article was accepted after the filing date; peer review participation does not establish elevated standing; and unsupported counsel assertions carry no evidentiary weight.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_01_B5203; source_row=15109 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
official academic record of degree relating to area of exceptional ability
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the petitioner met the plain wording of this criterion by submitting an official academic record from the University of Malaya, noting equivalency is reserved for final merits.
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 met the plain wording of this criterion by submitting an official academic record from the University of Malaya, noting equivalency is reserved for final merits.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_01_B5203; source_row=15111 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
national in scope
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the beneficiary's day-to-day functions as a school psychologist for a single school district lack national scope; the witness letters emphasize local impact in West Orange.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the beneficiary's day-to-day functions as a school psychologist for a single school district lack national scope; the witness letters emphasize local impact in West Orange.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_02_B5203; source_row=15125 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the record does not credibly document acclaim in the U.S.; the beneficiary's crisis intervention expertise was a contingency rather than a demonstrated contribution, and her past achievements in the BWI did not translate to projected impact in New Jersey's developed psychological infrastructure.
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 record does not credibly document acclaim in the U.S.; the beneficiary's crisis intervention expertise was a contingency rather than a demonstrated contribution, and her past achievements in the BWI did not translate to projected impact in New Jersey's developed psychological infrastructure.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_02_B5203; source_row=15126 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Because the petitioner was on notice of all regulatory criteria through the regulations, Form I-140 instructions, and the director's RFE, but did not claim this criterion before the director, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. New eligibility claims are not considered on appeal when the petitioner was previously notified and afforded an opportunity to provide evidence.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
Because the petitioner was on notice of all regulatory criteria through the regulations, Form I-140 instructions, and the director's RFE, but did not claim this criterion before the director, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. New eligibility claims are not considered on appeal when the petitioner was previously notified and afforded an opportunity to provide evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_01_B2203; source_row=15103 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other15 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
What the decision said
On appeal, counsel made only a passing reference ('The contracts were submitted with business plan') without identifying an error or providing comparative salary data. AAO considered this issue abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
On appeal, counsel made only a passing reference ('The contracts were submitted with business plan') without identifying an error or providing comparative salary data. AAO considered this issue abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-08-08_02_B2203; source_row=15121 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c