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.
AAO found the emails only showed a reminder to complete judging and the Petitioner's stated intention to complete the task, but did not demonstrate that she actually participated in judging. No corroborating documentation showed how many or which campaigns she reviewed.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the emails only showed a reminder to complete judging and the Petitioner's stated intention to complete the task, but did not demonstrate that she actually participated in judging. No corroborating documentation showed how many or which campaigns she reviewed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-11_01_B2203; source_row=34011 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the letters of support were conclusory and did not describe specific original contributions impacting the broader field. Citation evidence showed the Petitioner's work was used as background information rather than singled out as particularly important, and one publication showed zero citations on Google Scholar.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the letters of support were conclusory and did not describe specific original contributions impacting the broader field. Citation evidence showed the Petitioner's work was used as background information rather than singled out as particularly important, and one publication showed zero citations on Google Scholar.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-11_01_B2203; source_row=34012 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
The Petitioner offered only vague statements about providing healthcare services without specific plans demonstrating how his work would impact U.S. interests or the healthcare industry at a national level. Reference letters praised his skills but did not adequately detail the national importance of his specific proposed 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 +
The Petitioner offered only vague statements about providing healthcare services without specific plans demonstrating how his work would impact U.S. interests or the healthcare industry at a national level. Reference letters praised his skills but did not adequately detail the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-11_02_B5203; source_row=34019 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO found the Director's analysis deficient because it mischaracterized the record (the Petitioner did provide evidence of customer and investor interest and job creation), applied analysis more applicable to prongs one and two, and failed to consider the Petitioner's self-employment argument.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director's analysis deficient because it mischaracterized the record (the Petitioner did provide evidence of customer and investor interest and job creation), applied analysis more applicable to prongs one and two, and failed to consider the Petitioner's self-employment argument.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-11_01_B5203; source_row=34018 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot addressedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO found the Director's analysis inadequate because the Director failed to engage with the actual supporting documentation referenced in counsel's letters and did not explain why the submitted evidence was insufficient. AAO did not itself reach a conclusion on whether the prong was met.
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 Director's analysis inadequate because the Director failed to engage with the actual supporting documentation referenced in counsel's letters and did not explain why the submitted evidence was insufficient. AAO did not itself reach a conclusion on whether the prong was met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-11_01_B5203; source_row=34016 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the Petitioner failed to sufficiently define his specific proposed endeavor, AAO could not evaluate whether he was well-positioned to advance it, and found he did not meet prong two for the same underlying reason as prong one.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner failed to sufficiently define his specific proposed endeavor, AAO could not evaluate whether he was well-positioned to advance it, and found he did not meet prong two for the same underlying reason as prong one.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-11_02_B5203; source_row=34020 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner described only broad areas of interest and expertise without specifying her proposed endeavor or explaining how she would pursue it. Her vague references to enacting trade policy, shaping corporate law, and volunteering for women's rights did not constitute a specific endeavor with national importance.…
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 +
The Petitioner described only broad areas of interest and expertise without specifying her proposed endeavor or explaining how she would pursue it. Her vague references to enacting trade policy, shaping corporate law, and volunteering for women's rights did not constitute a specific endeavor with national importance. Labor shortages in professional services do not render her work nationally important, and a post-filing job offer as a financial analyst cannot retroactively establish eligibility.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-10-10_02_B5203; source_row=33989 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c