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.
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO accepted the new letter into evidence because the Director failed to notify the Petitioner of all deficiencies in the RFE, but found that the new letter had reduced probative value as it came from a non-employer third party, and that the duties it described—monitoring deliveries, payments, and contract obligations—were inconsistent with human resources functions, creating unresolved discrepancies the Petitioner did not…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO accepted the new letter into evidence because the Director failed to notify the Petitioner of all deficiencies in the RFE, but found that the new letter had reduced probative value as it came from a non-employer third party, and that the duties it described—monitoring deliveries, payments, and contract obligations—were inconsistent with human resources functions, creating unresolved discrepancies the Petitioner did not resolve with independent objective evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-03_03_B5203; source_row=30656 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold number of criteria, though AAO noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold number of criteria, though AAO noted in dicta that the aggregate record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-03_01_B2203; source_row=30643 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / Clinical
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner merely pointed to previously submitted documents without providing new arguments or evidence on appeal, AAO treated the claim as effectively abandoned/waived.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner merely pointed to previously submitted documents without providing new arguments or evidence on appeal, AAO treated the claim as effectively abandoned/waived.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2023-01-03_01_B2203; source_row=30639 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 AAO agreed that while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, she failed to demonstrate national importance. Her work as an IT project manager was not shown to affect the field of IT project management more broadly, her process mapping methodology was not shown to be her innovation or to broadly benefit the field, her prior project experience is relevant to the second prong not the first, and job market data does n…
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 AAO agreed that while the Petitioner's work has substantial merit, she failed to demonstrate national importance. Her work as an IT project manager was not shown to affect the field of IT project management more broadly, her process mapping methodology was not shown to be her innovation or to broadly benefit the field, her prior project experience is relevant to the second prong not the first, and job market data does not bear on whether her proposed endeavor is of national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-12-29_01_B5203; source_row=30630 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO found the evaluator's credit-hour conversion implausible, noted the absence of supporting evidence for an accelerated program, and relied on EDGE data to discount the evaluation. Because a U.S. bachelor's degree typically requires four years of study, the three-year Brazilian degree was not found equivalent.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the evaluator's credit-hour conversion implausible, noted the absence of supporting evidence for an accelerated program, and relied on EDGE data to discount the evaluation. Because a U.S. bachelor's degree typically requires four years of study, the three-year Brazilian degree was not found equivalent.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-12-29_02_B5203; source_row=30633 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
AAO found that the evidence showed benefits to individual client companies but did not substantiate broader implications within the FDI or EIM fields or for the nation as a whole. Claims of unique or novel methodology were unsubstantiated, the connection between EIM services and FDI was insufficiently explained, and the proposed endeavor did not appear to operate on a scale rising to 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 +
AAO found that the evidence showed benefits to individual client companies but did not substantiate broader implications within the FDI or EIM fields or for the nation as a whole. Claims of unique or novel methodology were unsubstantiated, the connection between EIM services and FDI was insufficiently explained, and the proposed endeavor did not appear to operate on a scale rising to national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-12-28_01_B5203; source_row=30624 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The support letter from HRQ only confirms she oversaw a student staff and does not establish that she performed peer review or had a formal judging designation. The Moot Court Honor Board documentation shows members organized and competed in competitions, not that the Petitioner judged them.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The support letter from HRQ only confirms she oversaw a student staff and does not establish that she performed peer review or had a formal judging designation. The Moot Court Honor Board documentation shows members organized and competed in competitions, not that the Petitioner judged them.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-12-28_01_B2203; source_row=30619 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c