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.
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 AAO agreed that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The business plan's revenue projections and job creation estimates lacked credible methodology. The letters of recommendation and resume addressed the Petitioner's skills but not the proposed endeavor's prospective impact.…
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 agreed that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance. The business plan's revenue projections and job creation estimates lacked credible methodology. The letters of recommendation and resume addressed the Petitioner's skills but not the proposed endeavor's prospective impact. The general entrepreneurship studies and industry reports did not speak to the specific proposed endeavor of operating a martial arts academy.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-27_01_B5203; source_row=33031 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that scholarly articles written by the Beneficiary are not 'about' her as required by the criterion. The magazine article was unattributed, appeared in an advertising feature section, and lacked evidence the publication was major media. The television appearance was about breast cancer treatment options rather than the Beneficiary, and there was no evidence of major media status.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that scholarly articles written by the Beneficiary are not 'about' her as required by the criterion. The magazine article was unattributed, appeared in an advertising feature section, and lacked evidence the publication was major media. The television appearance was about breast cancer treatment options rather than the Beneficiary, and there was no evidence of major media status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-27_01_B2203; source_row=33026 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical3 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that education, training, and clinical experience are not original scientific contributions; publication in well-ranked journals does not inherently demonstrate major significance; 73 total citations with no comparative context were insufficient; and recommendation letters used hyperbolic language without specific examples of how the Beneficiary's work influenced or was widely implemented in the field.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that education, training, and clinical experience are not original scientific contributions; publication in well-ranked journals does not inherently demonstrate major significance; 73 total citations with no comparative context were insufficient; and recommendation letters used hyperbolic language without specific examples of how the Beneficiary's work influenced or was widely implemented in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-27_01_B2203; source_row=33028 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that neither the employment relationship nor the various memberships and fellowships demonstrated that outstanding achievements were required and judged by recognized national or international experts. Fellowship programs represented temporary training opportunities rather than membership in associations, and evidence of membership requirements was insufficient or unreliable (e.g., Wikipedia).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that neither the employment relationship nor the various memberships and fellowships demonstrated that outstanding achievements were required and judged by recognized national or international experts. Fellowship programs represented temporary training opportunities rather than membership in associations, and evidence of membership requirements was insufficient or unreliable (e.g., Wikipedia).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-27_01_B2203; source_row=33025 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical3 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence threshold of three criteria, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence threshold of three criteria, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-27_01_B2203; source_row=33030 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 that the reference letters and expert opinions did not demonstrate national-level impact of the Petitioner's consultancy, and that articles about the marketing profession generally do not speak to the specific endeavor's 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 that the reference letters and expert opinions did not demonstrate national-level impact of the Petitioner's consultancy, and that articles about the marketing profession generally do not speak to the specific endeavor's national importance. The business plan's projection of eight jobs by 2026 did not show substantial positive economic effects at a national level, and the endeavor as a small Florida-based consultancy did not extend beyond employees and clients to impact the marketing or communications industries more broadly.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-26_02_B5203; source_row=33012 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c