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 6381–6390
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination (exceptional ability)
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria, AAO did not conduct a formal final merits analysis, though it noted the record in aggregate does not support finding exceptional ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria, AAO did not conduct a formal final merits analysis, though it noted the record in aggregate does not support finding exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-20_06_B5203; source_row=35148 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
at least ten years of full-time experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the employment letters do not indicate full-time work, the Petitioner appeared to work for two employers simultaneously (suggesting neither was full-time), and the contracts and social security documents do not come from employers and do not confirm full-time capacity.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the employment letters do not indicate full-time work, the Petitioner appeared to work for two employers simultaneously (suggesting neither was full-time), and the contracts and social security documents do not come from employers and do not confirm full-time capacity.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-20_06_B5203; source_row=35143 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO did not evaluate this prong on the merits because the motion was dismissed on procedural grounds; the footnote reference is purely illustrative of the motion's inadequacy.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not evaluate this prong on the merits because the motion was dismissed on procedural grounds; the footnote reference is purely illustrative of the motion's inadequacy.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-20_02_B5203; source_row=35131 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c