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 651–660
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO did not reach prong one on the merits, instead remanding because SCOPS' procedural shift from the RFE deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond.
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 did not reach prong one on the merits, instead remanding because SCOPS' procedural shift from the RFE deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-23_10_B5203; source_row=44313 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States
What the decision said
AAO declined to address the third-prong portion of the SCOPS decision because the Petitioner had already established error in the underlying decision warranting remand.
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 address the third-prong portion of the SCOPS decision because the Petitioner had already established error in the underlying decision warranting remand.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-23_10_B5203; source_row=44315 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
The article only briefly mentioned the Petitioner's lecture and was not about him, and lacked an author. The video evidence was choppy, lacked an original-language transcript, and was insufficient to evaluate.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The article only briefly mentioned the Petitioner's lecture and was not about him, and lacked an author. The video evidence was choppy, lacked an original-language transcript, and was insufficient to evaluate.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-23_02_B2203; source_row=44294 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found substantial merit established but agreed national importance was not. The Petitioner's reliance on industry-wide reports, claims of job creation and tax contributions, environmental benefits, and training activities did not show a broader prospective impact beyond her direct clients.
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 substantial merit established but agreed national importance was not. The Petitioner's reliance on industry-wide reports, claims of job creation and tax contributions, environmental benefits, and training activities did not show a broader prospective impact beyond her direct clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-22_03_B5203; source_row=44276 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the vast majority of submitted articles lacked required author or date information. The US Times Now article's authorship was unclear as the Petitioner's name appeared above the article but was not definitively identified as the author, and the interview format indicated he was not the author. The Open News article focused on the Petitioner's views on Italian design rather than his work.…
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 vast majority of submitted articles lacked required author or date information. The US Times Now article's authorship was unclear as the Petitioner's name appeared above the article but was not definitively identified as the author, and the interview format indicated he was not the author. The Open News article focused on the Petitioner's views on Italian design rather than his work. The Houzz.com articles only briefly highlighted individual pieces from the company's collection and were not about the Petitioner relating to his work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=44262 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's income was documented under the title of 'purchasing agent' per his accountant, and his occupation on tax forms was listed as 'Investor.' The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a purchasing agent role is comparable to a CEO, making the salary comparison to chief executives inapt. The Petitioner also failed to show comparable compensation for those performing equivalent duties.
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 Petitioner's income was documented under the title of 'purchasing agent' per his accountant, and his occupation on tax forms was listed as 'Investor.' The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a purchasing agent role is comparable to a CEO, making the salary comparison to chief executives inapt. The Petitioner also failed to show comparable compensation for those performing equivalent duties.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=44267 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that the Petitioner failed to establish that the scholarly articles criterion does not readily apply to his occupation, as his assertion was unsupported. Even if it did not apply, the articles submitted — consisting of short interviews not authored by the Petitioner — lacked the complexity, detail, research, or discourse found in scholarly articles and were not comparable evidence.
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 found that the Petitioner failed to establish that the scholarly articles criterion does not readily apply to his occupation, as his assertion was unsupported. Even if it did not apply, the articles submitted — consisting of short interviews not authored by the Petitioner — lacked the complexity, detail, research, or discourse found in scholarly articles and were not comparable evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=44265 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
AAO found that the Petitioner had not shown his business model was original, noting that evidence showed the company was started by his grandfather and had operated for decades. Even assuming originality, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the business model had impacted the field beyond the Petitioner's own clients and manufacturing partners to constitute major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner had not shown his business model was original, noting that evidence showed the company was started by his grandfather and had operated for decades. Even assuming originality, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the business model had impacted the field beyond the Petitioner's own clients and manufacturing partners to constitute major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=44264 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reversed the Director's finding, concluding that judging products made by furniture manufacturers is not in the same or allied field as the Petitioner's claimed field as a CEO, and therefore does not satisfy the plain language of the criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO reversed the Director's finding, concluding that judging products made by furniture manufacturers is not in the same or allied field as the Petitioner's claimed field as a CEO, and therefore does not satisfy the plain language of the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-22_01_B2203; source_row=44263 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c