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 2331–2340
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the second prong, making a finding on the third prong unnecessary to the result.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved the third prong because the Petitioner failed to establish the second prong, making a finding on the third prong unnecessary to the result.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-04_01_B5203; source_row=41596 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO reserved prong 3 in the prior appeal decision as the national importance issue under prong 1 was dispositive, and did not reach it in the current motions either.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved prong 3 in the prior appeal decision as the national importance issue under prong 1 was dispositive, and did not reach it in the current motions either.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-04_08_B5203; source_row=41618 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO reserved prong 2 in the prior appeal decision as the national importance issue under prong 1 was dispositive, and did not reach it in the current motions either.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved prong 2 in the prior appeal decision as the national importance issue under prong 1 was dispositive, and did not reach it in the current motions either.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-04_08_B5203; source_row=41617 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
The record did not show how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have a nationally important impact on the hospitality field or create substantial positive economic effects. The Petitioner's statement focused on the field generally rather than her specific endeavor, the articles did not address her specific endeavor, the recommendation letters spoke only to her past work, and the business plan lacked supporting details…
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 record did not show how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have a nationally important impact on the hospitality field or create substantial positive economic effects. The Petitioner's statement focused on the field generally rather than her specific endeavor, the articles did not address her specific endeavor, the recommendation letters spoke only to her past work, and the business plan lacked supporting details for its financial projections.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-04_05_B5203; source_row=41607 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to show his endeavor extends beyond his future clients to impact the transportation industry broadly at a nationally important level, and that claims of substantial economic effects were unsupported by independent evidence such as market studies or documentation of possible clients.
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 failed to show his endeavor extends beyond his future clients to impact the transportation industry broadly at a nationally important level, and that claims of substantial economic effects were unsupported by independent evidence such as market studies or documentation of possible clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-04_07_B5203; source_row=41613 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence and statements addressed the general importance of the software development field rather than the specific prospective impact of his own proposed 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 +
The AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence and statements addressed the general importance of the software development field rather than the specific prospective impact of his own proposed endeavor. Generalized conclusory statements lacked probative value, the expert letter focused on the field collectively rather than the Petitioner's specific work, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects attributable to his work specifically.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-01_05_B5203; source_row=41579 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO concurred that substantial merit was shown but national importance was not, citing unsupported financial/staffing projections, lack of independent evidence regarding the proprietary algorithm's claimed impact, and recommendation letters that addressed the Petitioner's qualifications rather than the endeavor's 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 concurred that substantial merit was shown but national importance was not, citing unsupported financial/staffing projections, lack of independent evidence regarding the proprietary algorithm's claimed impact, and recommendation letters that addressed the Petitioner's qualifications rather than the endeavor's prospective impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-01_07_B5203; source_row=41585 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO finds the evidence does not show the endeavor would significantly employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact, or broadly impact the industry beyond the employer and its investees. The petitioner's evidence focuses on his qualifications (relevant to prong 2) rather than the prospective impact of the specific endeavor itself.
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 finds the evidence does not show the endeavor would significantly employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact, or broadly impact the industry beyond the employer and its investees. The petitioner's evidence focuses on his qualifications (relevant to prong 2) rather than the prospective impact of the specific endeavor itself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-01_01_B5203; source_row=41569 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination of exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the totality of evidence does not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered: experience and flight hours alone do not show comparative superiority, the ALP-ETH leadership claims are uncorroborated, and a single overtime-laden paystub cannot establish a salary demonstrating exceptional ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the totality of evidence does not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered: experience and flight hours alone do not show comparative superiority, the ALP-ETH leadership claims are uncorroborated, and a single overtime-laden paystub cannot establish a salary demonstrating exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-01_03_B5203; source_row=41572 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c