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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-21_01_B2203; source_row=35166 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Major awardNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Major award
One-time major internationally recognized award
What the decision said
The Petitioner did not contest the Director's conclusion that he had not received a major internationally recognized award, and therefore waived appeal on this issue.
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 contest the Director's conclusion that he had not received a major internationally recognized award, and therefore waived appeal on this issue.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-21_01_B2203; source_row=35159 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
exceptional ability final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO found the Director's conclusion lacked required analysis and withdrew it, but reserved substantive consideration because the appeal was resolved on national importance grounds.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director's conclusion lacked required analysis and withdrew it, but reserved substantive consideration because the appeal was resolved on national importance grounds.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-21_01_B5203; source_row=35167 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's plans to provide energy assessments and solar panel installations to regional customers did not demonstrate broader national implications. The expert letters and supporting documents addressed the importance of the solar energy industry generally rather than the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, and the Petitioner's staffing and revenue projections were unsub…
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 plans to provide energy assessments and solar panel installations to regional customers did not demonstrate broader national implications. The expert letters and supporting documents addressed the importance of the solar energy industry generally rather than the specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, and the Petitioner's staffing and revenue projections were unsubstantiated and insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-20_04_B5203; source_row=35136 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c