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 9191–9200
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to reach the third prong because it hinges on still-unresolved questions concerning the first two prongs and was therefore not yet ripe for appellate review.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to reach the third prong because it hinges on still-unresolved questions concerning the first two prongs and was therefore not yet ripe for appellate review.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-24_01_B5203; source_row=30822 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States
What the decision said
The AAO explicitly reserved analysis of the third prong because the first prong was not satisfied, making further analysis serve no meaningful purpose.
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 explicitly reserved analysis of the third prong because the first prong was not satisfied, making further analysis serve no meaningful purpose.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-24_02_B5203; source_row=30825 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
The AAO explicitly reserved analysis of the second prong because the first prong was not satisfied, making further analysis serve no meaningful purpose.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
The AAO explicitly reserved analysis of the second prong because the first prong was not satisfied, making further analysis serve no meaningful purpose.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-24_02_B5203; source_row=30824 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
valid signature on Form I-290B
Why AAO was not persuaded
Counsel signed both the Petitioner's and the preparer's portions of the Form I-290B, rendering the signature deficient and the appeal improperly filed.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Counsel signed both the Petitioner's and the preparer's portions of the Form I-290B, rendering the signature deficient and the appeal improperly filed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-23_01_B2203; source_row=30816 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO does not reach a substantive determination on this criterion but finds the Director's analysis inadequate; specifically, the Director failed to analyze the letters' content on significance and did not address evidence of the pharmaceutical collaboration involving the Petitioner's integrin binder. The matter is remanded for a new decision with proper explanation.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO does not reach a substantive determination on this criterion but finds the Director's analysis inadequate; specifically, the Director failed to analyze the letters' content on significance and did not address evidence of the pharmaceutical collaboration involving the Petitioner's integrin binder. The matter is remanded for a new decision with proper explanation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-23_02_B2203; source_row=30819 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The diploma and transcript submitted did not establish that the Beneficiary's degree was in finance or a related field; the transcript listed only 'concentrations,' and the school apparently awarded a single major in business.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The diploma and transcript submitted did not establish that the Beneficiary's degree was in finance or a related field; the transcript listed only 'concentrations,' and the school apparently awarded a single major in business.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-20_01_B5203; source_row=30815 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found that, based on information systems showing receipt, approval, and revocation notices (but no rejection notice) and the fact that the original submission was not returned, the filing was revoked—not rejected.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that, based on information systems showing receipt, approval, and revocation notices (but no rejection notice) and the fact that the original submission was not returned, the filing was revoked—not rejected.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-20_01_B5203; source_row=30813 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c