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.
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach this criterion because it was raised for the first time on appeal, so the Director could not have erred with respect to it, and in any event discussion of it would not change the outcome given the Petitioner had not met at least two other criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach this criterion because it was raised for the first time on appeal, so the Director could not have erred with respect to it, and in any event discussion of it would not change the outcome given the Petitioner had not met at least two other criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_03_B2203; source_row=39919 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's argument misstates the eligibility criteria, as meeting three criteria is necessary but not sufficient. The letters relate to steel production rather than auto repair entrepreneurship, and the Petitioner did not provide business records demonstrating solvency or substantial contributions to automotive repair entrepreneurialism.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner's argument misstates the eligibility criteria, as meeting three criteria is necessary but not sufficient. The letters relate to steel production rather than auto repair entrepreneurship, and the Petitioner did not provide business records demonstrating solvency or substantial contributions to automotive repair entrepreneurialism.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_06_B5203; source_row=39945 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner only accounted for work experience from 2015 onward and therefore did not have ten years of experience in his field at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner only accounted for work experience from 2015 onward and therefore did not have ten years of experience in his field at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_06_B5203; source_row=39941 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The letters discuss the Petitioner's work as a thermal control operator in steel production, not automotive repair. The Petitioner did not articulate how they reflect significant contributions to automotive repair entrepreneurialism, and provided no evidence from government entities or professional organizations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The letters discuss the Petitioner's work as a thermal control operator in steel production, not automotive repair. The Petitioner did not articulate how they reflect significant contributions to automotive repair entrepreneurialism, and provided no evidence from government entities or professional organizations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_06_B5203; source_row=39944 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
Why AAO was not persuaded
The submitted letter showed work as a Sales Representative, not in the occupation sought (Chief Executive Officer), so it does not establish ten years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The submitted letter showed work as a Sales Representative, not in the occupation sought (Chief Executive Officer), so it does not establish ten years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-08-14_07_B5203; source_row=39950 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c