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 2511–2520
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,023 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner's failure to meet three criteria is dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner's failure to meet three criteria is dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-10_01_B2203; source_row=41296 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
FinanceMaster’s
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
Substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's work as a financial analyst was not shown to likely impact the field or have national implications; the possible creation of 25 positions did not constitute substantial positive economic effects, and merely working in an important field is insufficient.
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 Petitioner's work as a financial analyst was not shown to likely impact the field or have national implications; the possible creation of 25 positions did not constitute substantial positive economic effects, and merely working in an important field is insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-10_01_B5203; source_row=41299 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's professional history began in 2014, only seven years before the 2021 filing date, and no new evidence was submitted to refute this determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's professional history began in 2014, only seven years before the 2021 filing date, and no new evidence was submitted to refute this determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-10_01_B5203; source_row=41297 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the industry's importance alone does not establish national importance of the specific endeavor. The Petitioner's offerings would only benefit his direct customers without broader industry implications, the employment and revenue projections lacked evidentiary basis, HUBZone operation was insufficient without explanation of substantial positive economic effects, and the expert opinion letter made only genera…
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 industry's importance alone does not establish national importance of the specific endeavor. The Petitioner's offerings would only benefit his direct customers without broader industry implications, the employment and revenue projections lacked evidentiary basis, HUBZone operation was insufficient without explanation of substantial positive economic effects, and the expert opinion letter made only general assertions without identifying specific broader impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-09_01_B5203; source_row=41277 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
commanding a salary demonstrating exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not provide comparative evidence showing his earnings were indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in his field.
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 provide comparative evidence showing his earnings were indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-09_01_B5203; source_row=41282 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the totality of evidence, while showing extensive training and experience, did not establish expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. The recommendation letters spoke broadly without indicating experience above others, and the Petitioner failed to explain what unique experience elevated him significantly above peers.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the totality of evidence, while showing extensive training and experience, did not establish expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. The recommendation letters spoke broadly without indicating experience above others, and the Petitioner failed to explain what unique experience elevated him significantly above peers.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-09_01_B5203; source_row=41285 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters and contracts show the Petitioner's involvement in business projects but do not demonstrate that his contributions rose to a level of major significance in the overall field. The evidence was limited to specific projects rather than impacting the field broadly, and the letters were conclusory without specific detail explaining the significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The letters and contracts show the Petitioner's involvement in business projects but do not demonstrate that his contributions rose to a level of major significance in the overall field. The evidence was limited to specific projects rather than impacting the field broadly, and the letters were conclusory without specific detail explaining the significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-09_01_B2203; source_row=41272 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reviewed the aggregate record and found it does not support sustained national or international acclaim, nor that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the aggregate record and found it does not support sustained national or international acclaim, nor that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-10-09_01_B2203; source_row=41276 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c