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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
What the decision said
AAO did not conduct a full final merits determination due to the Petitioner's failure to meet the initial evidence threshold, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of 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 did not conduct a full final merits determination due to the Petitioner's failure to meet the initial evidence threshold, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_02_B2203; source_row=40421 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot pursuedAutomated 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 noted the Director found prong two was met. AAO did not separately analyze prong two as the appeal was resolved against the petitioner on prong one, and AAO did not disturb the Director's finding.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted the Director found prong two was met. AAO did not separately analyze prong two as the appeal was resolved against the petitioner on prong one, and AAO did not disturb the Director's finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_05_B5203; source_row=40434 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
exceptional ability final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserves the issue because the failure to establish national importance of the proposed endeavor is dispositive of the appeal, making it unnecessary to reach whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 exceptional ability classification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserves the issue because the failure to establish national importance of the proposed endeavor is dispositive of the appeal, making it unnecessary to reach whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 exceptional ability classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_05_B5203; source_row=40432 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in professional associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdraws because the record does not show these industry organizations require members to hold at least a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent, as required by the regulatory definition of 'profession.'
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdraws because the record does not show these industry organizations require members to hold at least a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent, as required by the regulatory definition of 'profession.'
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_06_B5203; source_row=40438 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdraws because, although the letters and awards praise the Petitioner's skills and successes within her employment, they do not identify significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdraws because, although the letters and awards praise the Petitioner's skills and successes within her employment, they do not identify significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_06_B5203; source_row=40439 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Director did not address this criterion but, upon review of the initial evidence, concluded the Petitioner met it based on her peer review service.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Director did not address this criterion but, upon review of the initial evidence, concluded the Petitioner met it based on her peer review service.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-29_01_B2203; source_row=40410 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c