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.
The Petitioner did not address on appeal his failure to explain how the letters correspond to any individual criterion, and his blanket assertion that several criteria don't apply is a general unsupported claim not allowed under USCIS policy. General claims that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are also not persuasive under the Policy Manual.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not address on appeal his failure to explain how the letters correspond to any individual criterion, and his blanket assertion that several criteria don't apply is a general unsupported claim not allowed under USCIS policy. General claims that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are also not persuasive under the Policy Manual.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_02_B2203; source_row=37038 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the credential evaluation insufficient because it did not explain why the Brazilian degree equates to a U.S. bachelor's, and the record did not show how many years of study were completed. Consulting EDGE, AAO noted some Brazilian bachelor's degrees involve only three years of study, which would not meet the U.S. bachelor's equivalency standard.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the credential evaluation insufficient because it did not explain why the Brazilian degree equates to a U.S. bachelor's, and the record did not show how many years of study were completed. Consulting EDGE, AAO noted some Brazilian bachelor's degrees involve only three years of study, which would not meet the U.S. bachelor's equivalency standard.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_01_B5203; source_row=37031 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit (potential revenues, job creation, empowerment of women and minorities) but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Projected revenues of $687K and six employees after five years would not substantially boost the national economy, and focusing on the broader personal styling market rather than the particular venture was insufficient.…
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 has substantial merit (potential revenues, job creation, empowerment of women and minorities) but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Projected revenues of $687K and six employees after five years would not substantially boost the national economy, and focusing on the broader personal styling market rather than the particular venture was insufficient. The Petitioner's method was praised by a handful of peers but the record did not establish it represented an advancement in the fashion field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_01_B5203; source_row=37033 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 the endeavor has substantial merit but found the record did not show prospective broader implications. The business plan projected only 15 total workers in an unspecified location, which is minimal and inconsistent with significant national economic impact, and no evidence showed how the bilingual model was novel or had implications comparable to manufacturing or medical advances.
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 has substantial merit but found the record did not show prospective broader implications. The business plan projected only 15 total workers in an unspecified location, which is minimal and inconsistent with significant national economic impact, and no evidence showed how the bilingual model was novel or had implications comparable to manufacturing or medical advances.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_03_B5203; source_row=37046 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO reserved criterion (v) because even if decided in the Petitioner's favor it could not change the outcome, as the Petitioner failed two other criteria and abandoned a fourth, making it impossible to reach three satisfied criteria.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved criterion (v) because even if decided in the Petitioner's favor it could not change the outcome, as the Petitioner failed two other criteria and abandoned a fourth, making it impossible to reach three satisfied criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_03_B2203; source_row=37043 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner identified evidence but failed to explain how or why it satisfied the plain language of the regulation, falling short of meeting the burden of proof.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner identified evidence but failed to explain how or why it satisfied the plain language of the regulation, falling short of meeting the burden of proof.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_02_B2203; source_row=37037 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
What the decision said
The Petitioner's appellate argument was only a generalized statement without explaining specific errors, amounting to a waiver of the issue on appeal. Additionally, post-filing awards (April, May, October 2023) cannot be considered in a petition filed in March 2023.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's appellate argument was only a generalized statement without explaining specific errors, amounting to a waiver of the issue on appeal. Additionally, post-filing awards (April, May, October 2023) cannot be considered in a petition filed in March 2023.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_02_B2203; source_row=37036 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
whether petitioner's field falls within statutory fields of sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics
What the decision said
AAO disagreed with the Director's categorical exclusion, finding lawyers are not automatically barred and that the available evidence suggests the Petitioner's field falls within 'business.' AAO remands for the Director to reevaluate the field-of-endeavor question.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's categorical exclusion, finding lawyers are not automatically barred and that the available evidence suggests the Petitioner's field falls within 'business.' AAO remands for the Director to reevaluate the field-of-endeavor question.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-04-17_01_B2203; source_row=37030 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c