Source-backed decision research

Explore how AAO evaluates evidence.

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.

Clear filters

10,847 decisions / 36,849 findings

Showing 45814590

NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Finance

Issue evaluated

NIW · Well positioned

well-positioned to advance the endeavor

What the decision said

AAO declined to reach the second prong because the dispositive failure on national importance under the first prong rendered it unnecessary.

Why this is useful

Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.

View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach the second prong because the dispositive failure on national importance under the first prong rendered it unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-06-03_01_B5203; source_row=37958
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Finance

Issue evaluated

NIW · Waiver on balance

on balance, beneficial to the United States

What the decision said

AAO declined to reach the third prong because the dispositive failure on national importance under the first prong rendered it unnecessary.

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 dispositive failure on national importance under the first prong rendered it unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-06-03_01_B5203; source_row=37959
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · EB-2 baselineNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

NIW · EB-2 baseline

Four-year bachelor's degree equivalency

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed that Matter of Shah requires a four-year baccalaureate degree. The Petitioner failed to address or challenge the Shah decision on appeal, effectively waiving the argument.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that Matter of Shah requires a four-year baccalaureate degree. The Petitioner failed to address or challenge the Shah decision on appeal, effectively waiving the argument.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_02_B5203; source_row=37934
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established

Case facts

Business / Management

Issue evaluated

NIW · National importance

substantial merit and national importance

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found that asset/project management services for individual SMB clients did not extend beyond those clients to impact the field or U.S. economy more broadly. The professor's opinion letter and industry reports did not specifically address the Petitioner's endeavor or its broader implications, and the business plan's job/revenue projections were unsupported.

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 the endeavor had substantial merit but found that asset/project management services for individual SMB clients did not extend beyond those clients to impact the field or U.S. economy more broadly. The professor's opinion letter and industry reports did not specifically address the Petitioner's endeavor or its broader implications, and the business plan's job/revenue projections were unsupported.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_03_B5203; source_row=37945
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
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 found the experience-based arguments more relevant to prong 2, and held that vague claims about addressing pilot shortages and attracting global students did not demonstrate national importance for an individual flight instructor's work.

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 found the experience-based arguments more relevant to prong 2, and held that vague claims about addressing pilot shortages and attracting global students did not demonstrate national importance for an individual flight instructor's work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_04_B5203; source_row=37949
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWexceptional ability otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

exceptional ability other

Ten years of full-time experience (criterion B)

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with the Director. The co-owner letter did not state the Petitioner worked full time or attained 10 years of experience. The Petitioner abandoned her arguments about the client letter on appeal by failing to address it.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director. The co-owner letter did not state the Petitioner worked full time or attained 10 years of experience. The Petitioner abandoned her arguments about the client letter on appeal by failing to address it.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_02_B5203; source_row=37937
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWexceptional ability otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

exceptional ability other

Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field (criterion F)

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with the Director. The letters contained general praise for the Petitioner's expertise but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 'the industry or field' as required.…

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director. The letters contained general praise for the Petitioner's expertise but did not demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 'the industry or field' as required. The co-owner's letter only described benefits to their company and projects, and the client letter focused on the company and the client's own projects rather than the Petitioner's specific impact on the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_02_B5203; source_row=37940
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWexceptional ability otherEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

exceptional ability other

Official academic record (criterion A)

Why the evidence was persuasive

Both AAO and the Director agreed that criterion A was satisfied by the Petitioner's academic record.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
Both AAO and the Director agreed that criterion A was satisfied by the Petitioner's academic record.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_02_B5203; source_row=37936
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWexceptional ability otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

exceptional ability other

Exceptional salary or remuneration (criterion D)

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with the Director. The co-owner's statements were unsupported and subjective. The Petitioner failed to overcome the Director's conclusion about bank statements on appeal, waiving that argument. The salary statistics were unreliable (unclear source, referred to 'designers' generally rather than interior designers), and the Petitioner compared herself to employees rather than co-owners of interior design businesses.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director. The co-owner's statements were unsupported and subjective. The Petitioner failed to overcome the Director's conclusion about bank statements on appeal, waiving that argument. The salary statistics were unreliable (unclear source, referred to 'designers' generally rather than interior designers), and the Petitioner compared herself to employees rather than co-owners of interior design businesses.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_02_B5203; source_row=37939
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
NIWNIW · EB-2 baselineNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context

Case facts

Other

Issue evaluated

NIW · EB-2 baseline

Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience

Why AAO was not persuaded

AAO agreed with the Director that the co-owner's letter lacked a specific description of duties and did not establish full-time work for at least five years. The client letter described the company's work rather than the Petitioner's individual duties, and was from a client rather than an employer or trainer as required.

Why this is useful

Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.

View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the co-owner's letter lacked a specific description of duties and did not establish full-time work for at least five years. The client letter described the company's work rather than the Petitioner's individual duties, and was from a client rather than an employer or trainer as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-05-31_02_B5203; source_row=37935
Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Open source dataset ↗
Back to assessment