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 withdrew the Director's favorable finding, concluding that the scholarly articles must be in the field of extraordinary ability (AI/ML), and the Petitioner's articles relate to singlet fission, not AI/ML. Because this new denial ground was not previously raised, the matter was remanded.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding, concluding that the scholarly articles must be in the field of extraordinary ability (AI/ML), and the Petitioner's articles relate to singlet fission, not AI/ML. Because this new denial ground was not previously raised, the matter was remanded.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-01-23_02_B2203; source_row=35549 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the Petitioner conflated prong-2 (well-positioned) evidence with prong-1 national importance, did not clarify the ambiguity in his stated industries, and provided insufficient objective evidence of prospective national impact through HUB Zone activity or job creation.
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 conflated prong-2 (well-positioned) evidence with prong-1 national importance, did not clarify the ambiguity in his stated industries, and provided insufficient objective evidence of prospective national impact through HUB Zone activity or job creation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-01-23_04_B5203; source_row=35558 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to submit either DOL Form ETA 750B or the alternative ETA 9089 sections despite being notified in the RFE and denial notice. The issue was not addressed on appeal and is considered waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to submit either DOL Form ETA 750B or the alternative ETA 9089 sections despite being notified in the RFE and denial notice. The issue was not addressed on appeal and is considered waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-01-23_05_B5203; source_row=35561 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
Substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's initial filing lacked a cognizable specific endeavor. The revised business-manufacturing endeavor introduced post-filing constituted a material change and could not establish eligibility. Even setting aside the material-change issue, the Petitioner had not specified his endeavor with sufficient clarity, and counsel's unsubstantiated assertions did not constitute evidence.…
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 Petitioner's initial filing lacked a cognizable specific endeavor. The revised business-manufacturing endeavor introduced post-filing constituted a material change and could not establish eligibility. Even setting aside the material-change issue, the Petitioner had not specified his endeavor with sufficient clarity, and counsel's unsubstantiated assertions did not constitute evidence. Credentials related to academic/research work addressed only the second prong, not the first.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-01-23_05_B5203; source_row=35562 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Electrical / Electronic Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first and second prongs was dispositive, citing 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 +
AAO declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first and second prongs was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-01-23_02_B5203; source_row=35554 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c