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.
10,847 decisions /36,849 findings
Showing 841–850
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
On balance, beneficial to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
The AAO reserved judgment on the third prong because the Petitioner's failure under the first prong was dispositive, making any finding on the third prong unnecessary.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
The AAO reserved judgment on the third prong because the Petitioner's failure under the first prong was dispositive, making any finding on the third prong unnecessary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-10_03_B5203; source_row=44025 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that submitted articles addressed general field issues but not the Petitioner's specific endeavor, that business projections were too modest to demonstrate significant employment or economic effects, and that the expert letter did not show the company's services would extend beyond individual clients to impact the field broadly at a national level.
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 submitted articles addressed general field issues but not the Petitioner's specific endeavor, that business projections were too modest to demonstrate significant employment or economic effects, and that the expert letter did not show the company's services would extend beyond individual clients to impact the field broadly at a national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-10_01_B5203; source_row=43998 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's 2023 training certificate contradicted her claim to have independently developed the technique, the letters lacked objective corroborating evidence, and numerous anomalies (future-tense descriptions of past events, template signatures, near-identical phrasing across letters) undermined the credibility and probative value of the letters.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner's 2023 training certificate contradicted her claim to have independently developed the technique, the letters lacked objective corroborating evidence, and numerous anomalies (future-tense descriptions of past events, template signatures, near-identical phrasing across letters) undermined the credibility and probative value of the letters.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-10_02_B2203; source_row=44003 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
substantial prospective benefit to the United States
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach this issue because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, making further discussion unnecessary to the result.
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 issue because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold, making further discussion unnecessary to the result.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-10_02_B2203; source_row=44008 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director on the leading/critical role sub-element, finding that the Petitioner did perform in a leadership role as founder and owner of his company. However, AAO agreed with the Director that the company lacks a distinguished reputation, noting it is relatively young (founded 2009), lacks recent media coverage, and growth alone is insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director on the leading/critical role sub-element, finding that the Petitioner did perform in a leadership role as founder and owner of his company. However, AAO agreed with the Director that the company lacks a distinguished reputation, noting it is relatively young (founded 2009), lacks recent media coverage, and growth alone is insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_01_B2203; source_row=43947 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Director found that the Petitioner's downloadable patient evaluation program was an original contribution but lacked evidence of major significance. AAO agreed, finding that the newspaper article was unreliable and potentially self-sourced, the program's 'views' data did not demonstrate widespread use or major significance, and none of the recommendation letters mentioned the program.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Director found that the Petitioner's downloadable patient evaluation program was an original contribution but lacked evidence of major significance. AAO agreed, finding that the newspaper article was unreliable and potentially self-sourced, the program's 'views' data did not demonstrate widespread use or major significance, and none of the recommendation letters mentioned the program.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-09_01_B2203; source_row=43945 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c