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 9261–9270
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO reserves judgment on the second prong pending resolution of the first prong on remand.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserves judgment on the second prong pending resolution of the first prong on remand.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_01_B5203; source_row=30704 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
New facts requirement for motion to reopen
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's motion submissions either reasserted claims abandoned on appeal (and therefore waived), introduced new eligibility claims not previously raised, or consisted of evidence postdating the petition filing date — none of which qualify as new facts within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's motion submissions either reasserted claims abandoned on appeal (and therefore waived), introduced new eligibility claims not previously raised, or consisted of evidence postdating the petition filing date — none of which qualify as new facts within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-10_03_B2203; source_row=30715 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the proposed endeavor did not demonstrate national importance. General work experience evidence is more relevant to the second prong; letters of recommendation and generic industry articles do not address how the endeavor extends beyond the employer's scope or has broader national implications. The post-filing business plan was properly excluded as a new set of facts.
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 that the proposed endeavor did not demonstrate national importance. General work experience evidence is more relevant to the second prong; letters of recommendation and generic industry articles do not address how the endeavor extends beyond the employer's scope or has broader national implications. The post-filing business plan was properly excluded as a new set of facts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-09_01_B5203; source_row=30694 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the Petitioner's three-and-a-half-year degree was insufficient. The letter from the school only described the course length, not that it was an accelerated program, so the argument did not overcome the deficiency.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the Petitioner's three-and-a-half-year degree was insufficient. The letter from the school only described the course length, not that it was an accelerated program, so the argument did not overcome the deficiency.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-06_01_B5203; source_row=30685 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ten years of full-time experience in the occupation (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's experience was as a military officer in administrative and HR roles, not as a military instructor, entrepreneur, or sales consultant — the disparate occupations he proposed to pursue. The experience letters therefore did not establish 10 years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner's experience was as a military officer in administrative and HR roles, not as a military instructor, entrepreneur, or sales consultant — the disparate occupations he proposed to pursue. The experience letters therefore did not establish 10 years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-06_01_B5203; source_row=30687 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
License to practice the occupation (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C))
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed this category was not met because the Petitioner offered no specific evidence or argument on appeal and had expressly stated initially he was not submitting evidence of licenses or certifications.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed this category was not met because the Petitioner offered no specific evidence or argument on appeal and had expressly stated initially he was not submitting evidence of licenses or certifications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-06_01_B5203; source_row=30688 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c