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 3361–3370
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
On balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner's failure to establish the first prong was dispositive of the appeal.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner's failure to establish the first prong was dispositive of the appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_04_B5203; source_row=39935 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach this prong on the merits because the Director's analysis was based on evidence not in the record, requiring remand for a new decision.
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 declined to reach this prong on the merits because the Director's analysis was based on evidence not in the record, requiring remand for a new decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_08_B5203; source_row=39959 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO reserved opinion on the second prong because the first prong was not met, making a finding on the second prong unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
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 opinion on the second prong because the first prong was not met, making a finding on the second prong unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_11_B5203; source_row=39976 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Beneficiary failed to meet the threshold evidentiary requirement of three criteria, but nonetheless noted the aggregate record does not establish the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Beneficiary failed to meet the threshold evidentiary requirement of three criteria, but nonetheless noted the aggregate record does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_01_B2203; source_row=39908 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
What the decision said
AAO expressly reserved this criterion because the Beneficiary cannot fulfill the minimum evidentiary requirement of three criteria regardless, making the issue unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO expressly reserved this criterion because the Beneficiary cannot fulfill the minimum evidentiary requirement of three criteria regardless, making the issue unnecessary to the ultimate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_01_B2203; source_row=39907 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO expressly reserved review of the Director's favorable determination for this criterion because the Beneficiary could not fulfill the minimum evidentiary requirement of three criteria regardless.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO expressly reserved review of the Director's favorable determination for this criterion because the Beneficiary could not fulfill the minimum evidentiary requirement of three criteria regardless.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_01_B2203; source_row=39905 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but observed in dicta that the record did not establish the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but observed in dicta that the record did not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_03_B2203; source_row=39923 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c