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 5731–5740
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
command of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration
What the decision said
AAO reserved this issue because the Petitioner could not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three criteria, making a ruling on this criterion unnecessary to the result.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved this issue because the Petitioner could not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three criteria, making a ruling on this criterion unnecessary to the result.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-29_01_B2203; source_row=36142 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the criterion was not met because the Petitioner provided no objective evidence to support her translation argument, and her evidence and assertions did not sufficiently address the Director's concerns.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion was not met because the Petitioner provided no objective evidence to support her translation argument, and her evidence and assertions did not sufficiently address the Director's concerns.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-29_01_B2203; source_row=36141 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed the criterion is met based on the numerous awards the Petitioner received, including multiple first-place finishes at various MMA and judo championships.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion is met based on the numerous awards the Petitioner received, including multiple first-place finishes at various MMA and judo championships.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-29_01_B2203; source_row=36138 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the proposed endeavor of owning and operating a software company had not been shown to have broader implications beyond its prospective clients. Arguments about STEM shortages, immigrant entrepreneurship, and expert opinion did not demonstrate how the endeavor would impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.…
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 that the proposed endeavor of owning and operating a software company had not been shown to have broader implications beyond its prospective clients. Arguments about STEM shortages, immigrant entrepreneurship, and expert opinion did not demonstrate how the endeavor would impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Revenue and employment projections in the business plan were too modest and localized to satisfy the 'substantial positive economic effects' standard.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-28_03_B5203; source_row=36131 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 found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner's plan to provide consulting services would not extend sufficiently beyond her clients and/or employers to impact the financial management industry broadly. Unsupported assertions about economic impact and job creation were insufficient, and the letters of recommendation did not provide persuasive detail about broader 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 proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. The Petitioner's plan to provide consulting services would not extend sufficiently beyond her clients and/or employers to impact the financial management industry broadly. Unsupported assertions about economic impact and job creation were insufficient, and the letters of recommendation did not provide persuasive detail about broader impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-28_04_B5203; source_row=36134 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's evidence — including the business plan, personal statement, expert letter, and client testimonial — did not demonstrate that the endeavor's prospective impact would extend beyond the Petitioner's company and its clients to reach a level of substantial positive economic effects nationally. The expert letter lacked numerical analysis and the client letter did not show broader 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 agreed that the Petitioner's evidence — including the business plan, personal statement, expert letter, and client testimonial — did not demonstrate that the endeavor's prospective impact would extend beyond the Petitioner's company and its clients to reach a level of substantial positive economic effects nationally. The expert letter lacked numerical analysis and the client letter did not show broader national impact.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-28_01_B5203; source_row=36125 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c