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 8991–9000
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other2,007 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved evaluation of the leading or critical role criterion because the Petitioner could not numerically meet three criteria without it, rendering the issue unnecessary to the outcome.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly reserved evaluation of the leading or critical role criterion because the Petitioner could not numerically meet three criteria without it, rendering the issue unnecessary to the outcome.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-24_02_B2203; source_row=31132 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The business plan and incorporation documents relating to the company the Petitioner founded after the petition filing date present a new set of facts and cannot establish eligibility. The uncorroborated references to reports from IBISWorld, CDC, NIMH, and NAMI do not identify the specific proposed endeavor or discuss how it has 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 +
The business plan and incorporation documents relating to the company the Petitioner founded after the petition filing date present a new set of facts and cannot establish eligibility. The uncorroborated references to reports from IBISWorld, CDC, NIMH, and NAMI do not identify the specific proposed endeavor or discuss how it has national importance. The remaining record is not well-defined, does not establish where the endeavor will operate or how it will generate income, and does not show national or global implications or substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-23_01_B5203; source_row=31121 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
Organizational size alone does not establish a leading or critical role, and the Petitioner's activities as a guest instructor and performer did not constitute a leading or critical role. Additionally, an individual class or musical ensemble at a university is not itself an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Organizational size alone does not establish a leading or critical role, and the Petitioner's activities as a guest instructor and performer did not constitute a leading or critical role. Additionally, an individual class or musical ensemble at a university is not itself an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-23_01_B2203; source_row=31117 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's claimed activities involved self-evaluation and conducting/directing, not judging the work of others. The cited letter showed he could direct a musical ensemble, not that he acted as a judge for evaluative purposes.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's claimed activities involved self-evaluation and conducting/directing, not judging the work of others. The cited letter showed he could direct a musical ensemble, not that he acted as a judge for evaluative purposes.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-23_01_B2203; source_row=31115 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient objective documentary evidence to show that the prizes are nationally or internationally recognized. The record lacks evidence from awarding entities, and mere assertions about an award's significance are insufficient. Additionally, the prizes appear to have been awarded to entire bands or orchestras, not individuals.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient objective documentary evidence to show that the prizes are nationally or internationally recognized. The record lacks evidence from awarding entities, and mere assertions about an award's significance are insufficient. Additionally, the prizes appear to have been awarded to entire bands or orchestras, not individuals.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-23_01_B2203; source_row=31113 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO reviewed all evidence in the record and found it did not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required. The record lacked basis for comparison with others in the field, and submitted letters from close associates did not represent a wider consensus amounting to sustained national or international acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO reviewed all evidence in the record and found it did not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required. The record lacked basis for comparison with others in the field, and submitted letters from close associates did not represent a wider consensus amounting to sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-02-23_01_B2203; source_row=31120 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c