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 2391–2400
NIWEB-1A · High remunerationNot established
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
Commanded a salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the applicable benchmark salary for his specific profession and experience level in Brazil, and that it was unclear whether the income reflected in his tax returns represented salary for an IT profession or profits/dividends from a business venture.
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 Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the applicable benchmark salary for his specific profession and experience level in Brazil, and that it was unclear whether the income reflected in his tax returns represented salary for an IT profession or profits/dividends from a business venture.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-29_04_B5203; source_row=41506 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIMaster’s
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the research component of the Petitioner's endeavor meets prong one, but withdrew the Director's determination as to the teaching component, finding that teaching courses in linguistics and TESOL would not meet the national importance standard under Dhanasar.
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 research component of the Petitioner's endeavor meets prong one, but withdrew the Director's determination as to the teaching component, finding that teaching courses in linguistics and TESOL would not meet the national importance standard under Dhanasar.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-29_03_B5203; source_row=41501 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, government entities, or professional or business organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the submitted letters of recommendation largely highlighted the Petitioner's general skills and capabilities rather than his achievements and significant contributions to his field. The letters described him as a valued employee and co-worker but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
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 submitted letters of recommendation largely highlighted the Petitioner's general skills and capabilities rather than his achievements and significant contributions to his field. The letters described him as a valued employee and co-worker but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-29_04_B5203; source_row=41508 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not raise criterion (E) until appeal, submitting new evidence for the first time. AAO declined to consider this evidence because the Petitioner had been put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to submit it earlier.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not raise criterion (E) until appeal, submitting new evidence for the first time. AAO declined to consider this evidence because the Petitioner had been put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to submit it earlier.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-29_04_B5203; source_row=41507 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Official academic record showing degree relating to area of exceptional ability
Why the evidence was persuasive
The Director, upon dismissing the combined motion, concluded the Petitioner established eligibility under criterion (A) by submitting an official academic record. AAO did not disturb this finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Director, upon dismissing the combined motion, concluded the Petitioner established eligibility under criterion (A) by submitting an official academic record. AAO did not disturb this finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-29_04_B5203; source_row=41504 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWten years experienceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
At least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to review criterion (B) because even if met, the Petitioner's failure on criteria (D), (E), and (F) meant he could not reach the required minimum of three criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to review criterion (B) because even if met, the Petitioner's failure on criteria (D), (E), and (F) meant he could not reach the required minimum of three criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-29_04_B5203; source_row=41505 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding his appeal arguments vague and unsupported. His credentials and industry reports did not demonstrate that the endeavor's impact would extend beyond his own clients and employees to a national scale, and the submitted reports did not pertain specifically to his 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 +
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding his appeal arguments vague and unsupported. His credentials and industry reports did not demonstrate that the endeavor's impact would extend beyond his own clients and employees to a national scale, and the submitted reports did not pertain specifically to his proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-28_02_B5203; source_row=41482 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c