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 5621–5630
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved judgment on prong two because the failure on prong one was dispositive.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved judgment on prong two because the failure on prong one was dispositive.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-12_03_B5203; source_row=36329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material in professional or major trade publication
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the record failed to show VCJ qualifies as a major trade publication. The citation metrics were actually for a different journal (Venture Capital by Routledge/Taylor & Francis, not VCJ by PEI), and the evidence of business school library listings and website visits did not demonstrate wide readership in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the record failed to show VCJ qualifies as a major trade publication. The citation metrics were actually for a different journal (Venture Capital by Routledge/Taylor & Francis, not VCJ by PEI), and the evidence of business school library listings and website visits did not demonstrate wide readership in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-12_02_B2203; source_row=36321 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 declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted that even on overall review the record does not support the classification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted that even on overall review the record does not support the classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-12_02_B2203; source_row=36324 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit given alignment with sustainable tourism goals, but found the Petitioner failed to show national importance because: the field's general importance does not establish the specific endeavor's national importance; the business plan projecting 12 employees and $166,081 in net profits by year five was too speculative and amorphous; the HUBZone argument was unsubstantiated; and t…
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 +
The AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit given alignment with sustainable tourism goals, but found the Petitioner failed to show national importance because: the field's general importance does not establish the specific endeavor's national importance; the business plan projecting 12 employees and $166,081 in net profits by year five was too speculative and amorphous; the HUBZone argument was unsubstantiated; and the evidence showed benefits likely limited to direct clients without broader field-wide impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-11_02_B5203; source_row=36299 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner's evidence insufficient to establish national importance because the professional plan offered only generalized projections without sufficient detail, the articles and reports addressed the IT industry broadly rather than the specific proposed endeavor, and the expert opinion was general and did not substantively analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its prospective national impact.
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 Petitioner's evidence insufficient to establish national importance because the professional plan offered only generalized projections without sufficient detail, the articles and reports addressed the IT industry broadly rather than the specific proposed endeavor, and the expert opinion was general and did not substantively analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its prospective national impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-11_03_B5203; source_row=36302 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
new facts supported by documentary evidence
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner submitted affidavits regarding the former employer's closure and a letter referencing a consulting role, but failed to establish unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence and did not explain why this evidence was not previously submitted.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner submitted affidavits regarding the former employer's closure and a letter referencing a consulting role, but failed to establish unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence and did not explain why this evidence was not previously submitted.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-11_05_B5203; source_row=36308 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, the AAO expressly declined to reach the third prong under INS v. Bagamasbad.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, the AAO expressly declined to reach the third prong under INS v. Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-11_02_B5203; source_row=36301 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
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, the AAO expressly declined to reach the second prong under INS v. Bagamasbad.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, the AAO expressly declined to reach the second prong under INS v. Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-03-11_02_B5203; source_row=36300 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c