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.
AAO found that an online article describing the Petitioner as chief judge of a duathlon and a letter from the president of the national federation confirming his judging role in three international triathlon competitions (2017, 2018, 2019) sufficed to satisfy criterion (iv).
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that an online article describing the Petitioner as chief judge of a duathlon and a letter from the president of the national federation confirming his judging role in three international triathlon competitions (2017, 2018, 2019) sufficed to satisfy criterion (iv).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-05_02_B2203; source_row=38676 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 formal final merits review because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in aggregate that the record does not demonstrate 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 formal final merits review because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in aggregate that the record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-05_01_B2203; source_row=38672 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the certificates from RIAA and BPI, combined with industry letters describing the company's accomplishments, sufficiently established that the Petitioner's management company has a distinguished reputation, and that the Petitioner as founder and CEO performed a leading or critical role for it.
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 certificates from RIAA and BPI, combined with industry letters describing the company's accomplishments, sufficiently established that the Petitioner's management company has a distinguished reputation, and that the Petitioner as founder and CEO performed a leading or critical role for it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-05_01_B2203; source_row=38669 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed the Director's finding that the Petitioner's evidence lacked probative value to demonstrate national importance. Generalized statements and background articles did not specifically address the Petitioner's endeavor, and no evidence from government entities or detailed expert letters documented specific U.S. government interest in the Petitioner's particular proposal.
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 affirmed the Director's finding that the Petitioner's evidence lacked probative value to demonstrate national importance. Generalized statements and background articles did not specifically address the Petitioner's endeavor, and no evidence from government entities or detailed expert letters documented specific U.S. government interest in the Petitioner's particular proposal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-04_01_B5203; source_row=38663 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, he failed to show that his specific proposed endeavor—a legal consulting company expected to hire 15 employees and generate $5.746M over five years—would have prospective impact on a national scale.…
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 while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, he failed to show that his specific proposed endeavor—a legal consulting company expected to hire 15 employees and generate $5.746M over five years—would have prospective impact on a national scale. General industry data and claims about U.S.-Brazil trade relations do not establish national importance of the specific endeavor, and the expert opinion letter lacked probative value because it addressed Brazil's legal environment rather than the proposed endeavor's prospective impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-03_02_B5203; source_row=38636 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the endeavor lacks substantial merit and withdrew that determination, finding it does have substantial merit. However, AAO agreed the overall prong is not met because the Petitioner failed to establish national importance: her evidence did not show her approach differs from existing methods, the expert opinion lacked independence, and the impacts of her work would not rise beyo…
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 disagreed with the Director's finding that the endeavor lacks substantial merit and withdrew that determination, finding it does have substantial merit. However, AAO agreed the overall prong is not met because the Petitioner failed to establish national importance: her evidence did not show her approach differs from existing methods, the expert opinion lacked independence, and the impacts of her work would not rise beyond her individual clients to a level commensurate with national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-03_08_B5203; source_row=38660 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The Petitioner's quality control consulting work does not rise to national importance, business plan projections lacked corroborating evidence, and the record did not detail the Petitioner's intended role in eco-friendly glass development or its broader national implications.…
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 Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The Petitioner's quality control consulting work does not rise to national importance, business plan projections lacked corroborating evidence, and the record did not detail the Petitioner's intended role in eco-friendly glass development or its broader national implications. Letters of support regarding the Petitioner's skills were more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-03_05_B5203; source_row=38651 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Director properly considered national importance by examining prospective impact broadly, including employment and economic effects. The business plan lacked corroborating evidence for employment and profit projections, and the Petitioner's general economic claims were insufficiently detailed.…
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 Director properly considered national importance by examining prospective impact broadly, including employment and economic effects. The business plan lacked corroborating evidence for employment and profit projections, and the Petitioner's general economic claims were insufficiently detailed. AAO also noted that the importance of the broader field (ADHD) is not itself sufficient; the specific proposed endeavor must show national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-07-03_03_B5203; source_row=38641 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c