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 6541–6550
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
ten years of full-time experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the documents do not indicate whether the Petitioner worked in a full-time capacity and do not describe job duties, so the evidence fails to demonstrate ten years of full-time experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the documents do not indicate whether the Petitioner worked in a full-time capacity and do not describe job duties, so the evidence fails to demonstrate ten years of full-time experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-07_05_B5203; source_row=34905 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the certificates submitted do not clearly qualify as 'official academic records' from a 'college, university, school, or other institution of learning' because the record lacks evidence about the nature of the issuing parties.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the certificates submitted do not clearly qualify as 'official academic records' from a 'college, university, school, or other institution of learning' because the record lacks evidence about the nature of the issuing parties.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-07_05_B5203; source_row=34904 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions
What the decision said
AAO reserved judgment on criterion (F) because the record already fails to satisfy at least two other criteria, making it unnecessary to determine whether criterion (F) is met in order to resolve the three-criterion threshold.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved judgment on criterion (F) because the record already fails to satisfy at least two other criteria, making it unnecessary to determine whether criterion (F) is met in order to resolve the three-criterion threshold.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-07_05_B5203; source_row=34908 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the endeavor has substantial merit, but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Projected revenues and indirect jobs did not show significant national economic impact, identified geographic areas were unspecified, and the businesses lacked demonstrated scale for national-level social impact or field-wide advancement.
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 with the Director that the endeavor has substantial merit, but found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance. Projected revenues and indirect jobs did not show significant national economic impact, identified geographic areas were unspecified, and the businesses lacked demonstrated scale for national-level social impact or field-wide advancement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-06_01_B5203; source_row=34873 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 the Petitioner conflated the importance of the hospice industry with the importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor. The record lacked evidence of plans for publication, presentation, or distribution of the Beneficiary's work, and the expert letter made only vague general statements without explaining how the Beneficiary's specific work would affect governmental programs, agencies, or the national economy.
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 the importance of the hospice industry with the importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor. The record lacked evidence of plans for publication, presentation, or distribution of the Beneficiary's work, and the expert letter made only vague general statements without explaining how the Beneficiary's specific work would affect governmental programs, agencies, or the national economy.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-06_03_B5203; source_row=34876 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 previously found the Petitioner did not show how his endeavor would have broader implications in the field or significant positive economic effects, and this motion did not demonstrate any error in that finding.
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 previously found the Petitioner did not show how his endeavor would have broader implications in the field or significant positive economic effects, and this motion did not demonstrate any error in that finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-06_04_B5203; source_row=34879 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 the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her endeavor would have broader implications in the field or significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects. The new job offer letter as an online interpreter similarly failed to show broader national implications beyond the individual customers she would serve.
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 did not demonstrate how her endeavor would have broader implications in the field or significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects. The new job offer letter as an online interpreter similarly failed to show broader national implications beyond the individual customers she would serve.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-12-06_05_B5203; source_row=34882 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c