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.
ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
Why AAO was not persuaded
On appeal the Petitioner offered only a conclusory assertion of more than ten years of experience without addressing the specific deficiencies the Director identified.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
On appeal the Petitioner offered only a conclusory assertion of more than ten years of experience without addressing the specific deficiencies the Director identified.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-14_01_B5203; source_row=33620 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in professional associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the record contains no certificate of membership and no evidence of a membership date prior to filing, citing Matter of Katigbak for the rule that eligibility must exist at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the record contains no certificate of membership and no evidence of a membership date prior to filing, citing Matter of Katigbak for the rule that eligibility must exist at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-14_01_B5203; source_row=33623 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
recognition for achievements and significant contributions (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's appeal made only conclusory statements restating regulatory language and noted the projects in the letters were not shown to relate to the HVAC field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner's appeal made only conclusory statements restating regulatory language and noted the projects in the letters were not shown to relate to the HVAC field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-14_01_B5203; source_row=33624 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reviewed the submitted diploma and transcripts and concluded the Petitioner holds a U.S. master's degree in business administration, satisfying the advanced degree requirement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reviewed the submitted diploma and transcripts and concluded the Petitioner holds a U.S. master's degree in business administration, satisfying the advanced degree requirement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-14_02_B5203; source_row=33628 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence focused on the general importance of the oil and gas industry and the drilling engineer occupation rather than the specific proposed endeavor. Recommendation letters addressed results for employers and clients but did not show broader field impact. The university advisory opinion relied on general economic ripple effects without specific analysis.…
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 AAO found that the Petitioner's evidence focused on the general importance of the oil and gas industry and the drilling engineer occupation rather than the specific proposed endeavor. Recommendation letters addressed results for employers and clients but did not show broader field impact. The university advisory opinion relied on general economic ripple effects without specific analysis. The Petitioner's framing of national importance through avoidance of negative outcomes or general industry interconnectedness was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-13_09_B5203; source_row=33601 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
While the record supports substantial merit (reflected in reports on small business growth), the Petitioner did not demonstrate the prospective impact of her consulting services extends beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly. She also failed to show significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects.
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 +
While the record supports substantial merit (reflected in reports on small business growth), the Petitioner did not demonstrate the prospective impact of her consulting services extends beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly. She also failed to show significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-13_11_B5203; source_row=33611 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 found the Petitioner failed to show her workplace health and safety solutions business would impact the health education field more broadly. Her personal credentials are relevant to prong two, not prong one. Business plan projections lacked corroborating evidence and even if accepted, creating 78 jobs and $14M in wages over five years does not rise to 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 +
AAO found the Petitioner failed to show her workplace health and safety solutions business would impact the health education field more broadly. Her personal credentials are relevant to prong two, not prong one. Business plan projections lacked corroborating evidence and even if accepted, creating 78 jobs and $14M in wages over five years does not rise to national importance. Industry reports did not tie specifically to her endeavor's projected impact, and the expert opinion focused on the field's general importance rather than the specific prospective impact of her endeavor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-13_08_B5203; source_row=33598 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
commanded a salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
The pre-filing salary evidence showed only negotiation above the minimum offered range but did not establish exceptional ability. The post-filing salary evidence cannot establish eligibility because eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The pre-filing salary evidence showed only negotiation above the minimum offered range but did not establish exceptional ability. The post-filing salary evidence cannot establish eligibility because eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-13_05_B5203; source_row=33579 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the endeavor has substantial merit but found it lacks national importance. The recommendation letters praised the Petitioner personally but offered no persuasive detail on broader impact beyond his clients. The industry reports showed only the general importance of marketing, not that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has 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 +
AAO agreed that the endeavor has substantial merit but found it lacks national importance. The recommendation letters praised the Petitioner personally but offered no persuasive detail on broader impact beyond his clients. The industry reports showed only the general importance of marketing, not that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance. The professional plan's claims of job creation and socioeconomic impact were unsubstantiated by evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-13_02_B5203; source_row=33561 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c