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 5871–5880
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
Substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO reserved this prong because the EB-2 threshold was not met, making the NIW analysis unnecessary.
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 reserved this prong because the EB-2 threshold was not met, making the NIW analysis unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-14_01_B5203; source_row=35929 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The proposed endeavor requires running a company as managing director, not just software development skills. Recruiter emails did not show interest in the Petitioner's company, and customer letters were post-dated from the filing date, failing to establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to show he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The proposed endeavor requires running a company as managing director, not just software development skills. Recruiter emails did not show interest in the Petitioner's company, and customer letters were post-dated from the filing date, failing to establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-13_02_B5203; source_row=35911 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AIBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but disagreed that national importance was established. The Petitioner's reliance on statistics about billion-dollar startups was unpersuasive because the business plan projects only $199,000 investment and three employees. General assertions about entrepreneurship and small businesses do not establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor.
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 proposed endeavor has substantial merit but disagreed that national importance was established. The Petitioner's reliance on statistics about billion-dollar startups was unpersuasive because the business plan projects only $199,000 investment and three employees. General assertions about entrepreneurship and small businesses do not establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-13_02_B5203; source_row=35910 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material in professional or major trade publications or major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The articles submitted either failed to qualify the publication as major media (due to lack of contextualized circulation statistics and unclear audience), or were not specifically about the Petitioner and his work. Several articles lacked required elements such as author name and publication date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The articles submitted either failed to qualify the publication as major media (due to lack of contextualized circulation statistics and unclear audience), or were not specifically about the Petitioner and his work. Several articles lacked required elements such as author name and publication date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-13_01_B2203; source_row=35900 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Business / ManagementFounder
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The testimonial and recommendation letter evidence confirmed a business relationship with the entities but did not establish that the Petitioner's role was leading or critical, nor did it demonstrate that the organizations had distinguished reputations. The Petitioner failed to specifically articulate on appeal why the Director's conclusions were incorrect.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The testimonial and recommendation letter evidence confirmed a business relationship with the entities but did not establish that the Petitioner's role was leading or critical, nor did it demonstrate that the organizations had distinguished reputations. The Petitioner failed to specifically articulate on appeal why the Director's conclusions were incorrect.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-13_01_B2203; source_row=35904 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO concluded that the Petitioner's experience, qualifications, and training activities establish the merit of her endeavor but not its national impact. The expert opinion letter and support letters do not show how the Petitioner's work has influenced the physical therapy industry broadly.…
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 concluded that the Petitioner's experience, qualifications, and training activities establish the merit of her endeavor but not its national impact. The expert opinion letter and support letters do not show how the Petitioner's work has influenced the physical therapy industry broadly. Industry reports on the importance of physical therapy and the shortage of therapists address the significance of the profession, not the specific impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-13_03_B5203; source_row=35913 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 that the Petitioner's professional plan lacked a detailed description of his specific proposed endeavor, the expert opinion was too general to establish national importance, and the Petitioner offered no business plan to support how he would deliver his services. The evidence focused on field-level importance and general healthcare shortages rather than the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor.
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 Petitioner's professional plan lacked a detailed description of his specific proposed endeavor, the expert opinion was too general to establish national importance, and the Petitioner offered no business plan to support how he would deliver his services. The evidence focused on field-level importance and general healthcare shortages rather than the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-02-12_03_B5203; source_row=35890 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c