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 3251–3260
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO withdrew the Director's decision because it lacked the required analysis — failing to discuss the criterion (v) evidence, making contradictory findings on criterion (vii), and offering no explanation for the ultimate conclusion — thereby depriving the Petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to appeal. AAO remanded for a new decision with proper analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's decision because it lacked the required analysis — failing to discuss the criterion (v) evidence, making contradictory findings on criterion (vii), and offering no explanation for the ultimate conclusion — thereby depriving the Petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to appeal. AAO remanded for a new decision with proper analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-20_02_B2203; source_row=40117 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field
Why the evidence was persuasive
Both the Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion, though AAO noted the Director failed to include any discussion of this evidence in the final merits analysis.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Both the Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion, though AAO noted the Director failed to include any discussion of this evidence in the final merits analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-20_02_B2203; source_row=40113 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIPhysician
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why the evidence was persuasive
Both the Director and AAO found this criterion satisfied; AAO acknowledged the Petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Both the Director and AAO found this criterion satisfied; AAO acknowledged the Petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-20_01_B2203; source_row=40103 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner's non-academic articles were written for learned persons in the field rather than laypersons, and that more than one publisher is highly regarded among learned persons in the field, satisfying criterion (vi).
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's non-academic articles were written for learned persons in the field rather than laypersons, and that more than one publisher is highly regarded among learned persons in the field, satisfying criterion (vi).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-20_01_B2203; source_row=40101 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although the Petitioner's IT services area has substantial merit, he failed to show national importance because he provided no evidence that his specific endeavor would have broader implications beyond his prospective clients, and his business plan projections lacked supporting documentation or explanation of how they would result in substantial positive economic effects at the national level.
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 +
Although the Petitioner's IT services area has substantial merit, he failed to show national importance because he provided no evidence that his specific endeavor would have broader implications beyond his prospective clients, and his business plan projections lacked supporting documentation or explanation of how they would result in substantial positive economic effects at the national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-19_03_B5203; source_row=40080 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed the second prong. The recommendation letters showed past client satisfaction but did not explain how his achievements position him to advance his future U.S. endeavor. The record lacked documentation of financial success in the Brazilian company, supporting evidence for claimed investments, and current contracts or interest from U.S. customers or investors.
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 with the Director that the Petitioner failed the second prong. The recommendation letters showed past client satisfaction but did not explain how his achievements position him to advance his future U.S. endeavor. The record lacked documentation of financial success in the Brazilian company, supporting evidence for claimed investments, and current contracts or interest from U.S. customers or investors.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-19_03_B5203; source_row=40081 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's título de tecnólogo from Brazil corresponds to only 2-3 years of university study per EDGE, making it insufficient to qualify as a U.S. bachelor's degree equivalent. Without a qualifying degree, the Petitioner cannot satisfy the advanced degree pathway via a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's título de tecnólogo from Brazil corresponds to only 2-3 years of university study per EDGE, making it insufficient to qualify as a U.S. bachelor's degree equivalent. Without a qualifying degree, the Petitioner cannot satisfy the advanced degree pathway via a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-19_03_B5203; source_row=40078 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c