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.
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination (exceptional ability)
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner did not meet at least three criteria, AAO did not conduct a full final merits determination, though it noted in advisory fashion that the record does not support a finding of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner did not meet at least three criteria, AAO did not conduct a full final merits determination, though it noted in advisory fashion that the record does not support a finding of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_04_B5203; source_row=44354 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner did not challenge SCOPS's conclusion that paralegal work does not constitute a 'profession' under the Act; therefore AAO treated this basis of ineligibility as waived on appeal.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not challenge SCOPS's conclusion that paralegal work does not constitute a 'profession' under the Act; therefore AAO treated this basis of ineligibility as waived on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_04_B5203; source_row=44355 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
Ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the submitted evidence did not meet the regulatory requirements. Although the Petitioner invoked the comparable evidence provision, he failed to adequately explain why employer letters were inapplicable to his occupation for most of his employment periods. The documents that were submitted lacked descriptions of duties, confirmation of full-time status, and complete date ranges.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the submitted evidence did not meet the regulatory requirements. Although the Petitioner invoked the comparable evidence provision, he failed to adequately explain why employer letters were inapplicable to his occupation for most of his employment periods. The documents that were submitted lacked descriptions of duties, confirmation of full-time status, and complete date ranges.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-25_04_B5203; source_row=44351 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed substantial merit was shown but national importance was not. The Petitioner's experience, citation record, and skills go to prong two; benefits to a single employer (even with a national footprint) are insufficient; job-creation claims were unsupported and not specifically linked to the 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 substantial merit was shown but national importance was not. The Petitioner's experience, citation record, and skills go to prong two; benefits to a single employer (even with a national footprint) are insufficient; job-creation claims were unsupported and not specifically linked to the endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-24_02_B5203; source_row=44338 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Letters show Armenian karate officials consider his methodology important, but the record lacks sufficient details about when and how he learned both styles, whether he was first to combine them, and whether other coaches have implemented his methods.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Letters show Armenian karate officials consider his methodology important, but the record lacks sufficient details about when and how he learned both styles, whether he was first to combine them, and whether other coaches have implemented his methods. AAO found SCOPS did not improperly impose requirements, as evidence of implementation and new techniques merely illustrates major significance rather than constituting novel requirements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-24_01_B2203; source_row=44329 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c