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.
NIWten years experienceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
ten years experience
ten years of full-time experience
Why AAO was not persuaded
The record did not establish that the Petitioner was employed in the 'Dentist, General' occupation for at least ten years prior to the filing date. Post-filing employment cannot be used to establish eligibility at 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 record did not establish that the Petitioner was employed in the 'Dentist, General' occupation for at least ten years prior to the filing date. Post-filing employment cannot be used to establish eligibility at time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-17_04_B5203; source_row=32862 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWlicense or certificationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
license or certification
license or certification
What the decision said
The Petitioner acknowledged the Director's adverse finding but did not identify or discuss specific evidence on appeal, so AAO deemed the issue waived.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner acknowledged the Director's adverse finding but did not identify or discuss specific evidence on appeal, so AAO deemed the issue waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-17_04_B5203; source_row=32863 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Meeting at least three of six exceptional ability criteria
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner offered no evidence on appeal to establish additional criteria or comparable evidence. His inability to provide employer letters is not itself proof that the criterion does not apply to his occupation, and he identified no specific comparable evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner offered no evidence on appeal to establish additional criteria or comparable evidence. His inability to provide employer letters is not itself proof that the criterion does not apply to his occupation, and he identified no specific comparable evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-17_01_B5203; source_row=32851 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience (bachelor's + 5 years)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's appellate submission included no employer letters to overcome the Director's determination, so the record supports the Director's finding.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's appellate submission included no employer letters to overcome the Director's determination, so the record supports the Director's finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-17_01_B5203; source_row=32849 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO disagreed with the Director on substantial merit, finding that the Petitioner's oil and gas endeavor falls within recognized areas of substantial merit and that the RFE response merely added detail without materially changing the character of the 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 disagreed with the Director on substantial merit, finding that the Petitioner's oil and gas endeavor falls within recognized areas of substantial merit and that the RFE response merely added detail without materially changing the character of the endeavor. However, AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to establish national importance, finding that the Petitioner's evidence focused on personal career achievements and execution rather than the prospective impact of the endeavor itself, and the advisory opinion offered only vague, generalized conclusions without identifying specific broader implications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-14_04_B5203; source_row=32830 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director that substantial merit was present but that the Petitioner failed national importance. Geographic breadth of services alone does not establish national importance; the Petitioner did not demonstrate broader implications for the U.S. economy or accounting field, potential to employ U.S. workers significantly, or that her revenue/employment projections were well-supported.
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 with the Director that substantial merit was present but that the Petitioner failed national importance. Geographic breadth of services alone does not establish national importance; the Petitioner did not demonstrate broader implications for the U.S. economy or accounting field, potential to employ U.S. workers significantly, or that her revenue/employment projections were well-supported.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-14_06_B5203; source_row=32843 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Advanced degree or equivalent (five years progressive experience)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's degree is only the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The employment letter fails to confirm full-time status, and tax documents suggesting self-employment contradict her claim of 40 hours per week, leaving the record insufficient to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's degree is only the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The employment letter fails to confirm full-time status, and tax documents suggesting self-employment contradict her claim of 40 hours per week, leaving the record insufficient to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-14_06_B5203; source_row=32836 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Although AAO noted it need not conduct a final merits determination given the failure to meet three criteria, it reviewed all evidence and found it insufficient to show the Petitioner's expertise is recognized as significantly above that ordinarily encountered in accounting.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although AAO noted it need not conduct a final merits determination given the failure to meet three criteria, it reviewed all evidence and found it insufficient to show the Petitioner's expertise is recognized as significantly above that ordinarily encountered in accounting.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-14_06_B5203; source_row=32842 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
commanding high salary or remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the salary evidence insufficient because the record did not reflect salaries expected for individuals performing duties comparable to those the Petitioner intends to undertake, and the O*NET description did not correspond to the Petitioner's described services.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the salary evidence insufficient because the record did not reflect salaries expected for individuals performing duties comparable to those the Petitioner intends to undertake, and the O*NET description did not correspond to the Petitioner's described services.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-07-14_02_B5203; source_row=32821 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c