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.
recognition for achievements and significant contributions (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that exceptional performance in the opinion of peers at a single employer does not establish recognition by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations on a scale beyond that employer.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that exceptional performance in the opinion of peers at a single employer does not establish recognition by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations on a scale beyond that employer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-12_04_B5203; source_row=33548 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
ten years of full-time experience (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that the record did not establish ten years of full-time employment, finding that only the May 2019 to January 2021 period was attested as full-time and that inconsistencies between the initial filing and RFE response were not resolved with independent objective evidence.
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 did not establish ten years of full-time employment, finding that only the May 2019 to January 2021 period was attested as full-time and that inconsistencies between the initial filing and RFE response were not resolved with independent objective evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-12_04_B5203; source_row=33546 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Adequacy of NOID notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv)
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the NOID did not identify ETA Form 750B and ETA Form 9089 as the missing evidence underlying the proposed denial, the denial on that basis deprived the petitioner of the adequate notice and opportunity to respond required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the NOID did not identify ETA Form 750B and ETA Form 9089 as the missing evidence underlying the proposed denial, the denial on that basis deprived the petitioner of the adequate notice and opportunity to respond required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-12_03_B5203; source_row=33542 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
The AAO noted that the reference letters describing the Petitioner's prior engineering work are pertinent to the second Dhanasar prong, but did not reach a final merits determination on this prong because the first prong was not met.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The AAO noted that the reference letters describing the Petitioner's prior engineering work are pertinent to the second Dhanasar prong, but did not reach a final merits determination on this prong because the first prong was not met.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-12_02_B5203; source_row=33540 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Evidence from industry publications about the importance of project management in the oil and gas industry, and the Petitioner's role in individual construction or repair projects, does not show that his proposed activities would affect the oil and gas industry more broadly or extend beyond benefits to his employer and its 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 +
Evidence from industry publications about the importance of project management in the oil and gas industry, and the Petitioner's role in individual construction or repair projects, does not show that his proposed activities would affect the oil and gas industry more broadly or extend beyond benefits to his employer and its clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-12_02_B5203; source_row=33539 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's business plan projections (88 jobs, $15M wages, $2.4M in taxes over five years) were unsubstantiated and insufficient to rise to national importance. Industry reports addressed the importance of the finance sector generally, not the Petitioner's specific 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 +
AAO found the Petitioner's business plan projections (88 jobs, $15M wages, $2.4M in taxes over five years) were unsubstantiated and insufficient to rise to national importance. Industry reports addressed the importance of the finance sector generally, not the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Recommendation letters and the expert opinion focused on the Petitioner's qualifications (relevant to prong two) rather than the prospective impact of his endeavor on the field. The Petitioner failed to establish any original innovations or broader implications beyond servicing his own clients.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-09-11_05_B5203; source_row=33525 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c