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 the employment letters were insufficient because they failed to specify full-time or part-time status, and there was an unexplained overlapping period of employment at two companies from March 2012 to September 2016, preventing reliable verification of five years of progressive experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the employment letters were insufficient because they failed to specify full-time or part-time status, and there was an unexplained overlapping period of employment at two companies from March 2012 to September 2016, preventing reliable verification of five years of progressive experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_04_B5203; source_row=35959 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 agreed with the Director that the endeavor lacks national importance because the evidence does not show the Petitioner's specific endeavor will have national/global implications or substantial economic effects beyond his own clients.
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 with the Director that the endeavor lacks national importance because the evidence does not show the Petitioner's specific endeavor will have national/global implications or substantial economic effects beyond his own clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_02_B5203; source_row=35951 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO noted that the Petitioner's letters of support and qualifications relate to the second prong but did not evaluate it because the first prong 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 noted that the Petitioner's letters of support and qualifications relate to the second prong but did not evaluate it because the first prong was dispositive.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_07_B5203; source_row=35968 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Environment / Energy
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found it impossible to evaluate whether the Petitioner was well-positioned because the proposed endeavor was inconsistently expressed across proceedings. The letters of support spoke favorably of the Petitioner but did not demonstrate persisting interest or support in the proposed endeavor, and it remained unclear how the Petitioner would execute the endeavor.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO found it impossible to evaluate whether the Petitioner was well-positioned because the proposed endeavor was inconsistently expressed across proceedings. The letters of support spoke favorably of the Petitioner but did not demonstrate persisting interest or support in the proposed endeavor, and it remained unclear how the Petitioner would execute the endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_01_B5203; source_row=35949 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the Director's conclusion because a baccalaureate degree alone does not meet the definition of an advanced degree, but reserved the ultimate eligibility determination because the NIW waiver analysis is dispositive.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's conclusion because a baccalaureate degree alone does not meet the definition of an advanced degree, but reserved the ultimate eligibility determination because the NIW waiver analysis is dispositive.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_03_B5203; source_row=35955 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
The AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirement, but noted in an advisory capacity that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirement, but noted in an advisory capacity that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_01_B2203; source_row=35947 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the signature was deficient because USCIS policy requires that any photocopy submitted be of an original document bearing an original handwritten signature. The Petitioner's method of scanning a signature from a separate piece of paper and electronically inserting it into the forms does not meet this requirement, even if the original signature itself was handwritten.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the signature was deficient because USCIS policy requires that any photocopy submitted be of an original document bearing an original handwritten signature. The Petitioner's method of scanning a signature from a separate piece of paper and electronically inserting it into the forms does not meet this requirement, even if the original signature itself was handwritten.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-15_06_B5203; source_row=35966 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c