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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach this criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria regardless of the outcome on this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach this criterion because the Petitioner could not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria regardless of the outcome on this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-06-22_02_B2203; source_row=32569 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination but conducted an aggregate review and found the record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination but conducted an aggregate review and found the record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-06-22_02_B2203; source_row=32570 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's proposed endeavor lacked a specific and consistent description—his initial filing described working as an architectural engineering manager building roads and bridges for U.S. companies, while his RFE response described running his own company installing aluminum and glass structures.…
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's proposed endeavor lacked a specific and consistent description—his initial filing described working as an architectural engineering manager building roads and bridges for U.S. companies, while his RFE response described running his own company installing aluminum and glass structures. The recommendation letters addressed past accomplishments rather than the prospective national impact of the endeavor, the expert opinion was inconsistent with the revised business plan, and the business plan projections lacked corroborating evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-06-22_04_B5203; source_row=32578 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
advanced degree qualification (bachelor's + 5 years progressive experience)
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that the academic evaluation and employment letters, considered in totality, established that the Petitioner more likely than not held a foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree and had at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty 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 found that the academic evaluation and employment letters, considered in totality, established that the Petitioner more likely than not held a foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree and had at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty at the time of filing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-06-22_06_B5203; source_row=32590 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
meets three of six criteria (academic record, experience, licensure)
Why the evidence was persuasive
The Director concluded, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner fulfilled the academic record, experience, and licensure criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and (C).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Director concluded, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner fulfilled the academic record, experience, and licensure criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and (C).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-06-22_07_B5203; source_row=32595 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c