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 941–950
EB-1AEB-1A · MembershipNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Membership
membership in qualifying associations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to demonstrate she holds membership in any association, finding the certifications demonstrate competency in agile methodologies rather than association membership. The Petitioner offered no probative evidence of actual membership or specific membership requirements.
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 failed to demonstrate she holds membership in any association, finding the certifications demonstrate competency in agile methodologies rather than association membership. The Petitioner offered no probative evidence of actual membership or specific membership requirements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-03_01_B2203; source_row=43843 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO concluded the Petitioner failed to show his manufacturing engineering consultancy would have impact beyond his company and clients commensurate with national importance, despite arguments tied to STEM, EV production, skilled engineer shortages, and economically depressed area effects.
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 concluded the Petitioner failed to show his manufacturing engineering consultancy would have impact beyond his company and clients commensurate with national importance, despite arguments tied to STEM, EV production, skilled engineer shortages, and economically depressed area effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-03_01_B5203; source_row=43847 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen – new facts supported by documentary evidence
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner did not submit new facts supported by documentary evidence. Counsel's unsubstantiated brief assertions are not evidence, and those assertions are contradicted by the record (e.g., the prior appeal was accompanied by a G-28 signed by former counsel). The Petitioner also failed to substantially comply with any of the Lozada requirements.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the Petitioner did not submit new facts supported by documentary evidence. Counsel's unsubstantiated brief assertions are not evidence, and those assertions are contradicted by the record (e.g., the prior appeal was accompanied by a G-28 signed by former counsel). The Petitioner also failed to substantially comply with any of the Lozada requirements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-03_03_B5203; source_row=43853 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider – prior decision incorrect based on law or policy
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the circuit court cases cited by the Petitioner involved petitioners who had substantially complied with at least one Lozada requirement, whereas here the Petitioner had not complied with any. Therefore, the prior decision was not shown to be based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the circuit court cases cited by the Petitioner involved petitioners who had substantially complied with at least one Lozada requirement, whereas here the Petitioner had not complied with any. Therefore, the prior decision was not shown to be based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-03_03_B5203; source_row=43854 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the Step 1 threshold, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the Step 1 threshold, but noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-03_01_B2203; source_row=43846 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 Petitioner's business plan projections lacked support and did not demonstrate substantial economic impact, that her references to job creation, tax revenue, and federal health initiatives were generalizations rather than evidence of broader national implications, and that her expert and support letters did not explain how her individual clinic would have national-level impact beyond her direct clients and…
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 Petitioner's business plan projections lacked support and did not demonstrate substantial economic impact, that her references to job creation, tax revenue, and federal health initiatives were generalizations rather than evidence of broader national implications, and that her expert and support letters did not explain how her individual clinic would have national-level impact beyond her direct clients and employees.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-03_02_B5203; source_row=43850 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 Petitioner's evidence related to the importance of the petroleum industry and electro-mechanical professionals generally, but failed to establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.…
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 Petitioner's evidence related to the importance of the petroleum industry and electro-mechanical professionals generally, but failed to establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner did not show how his employment as an electro-mechanical professional would impact the field or economy more broadly, and even considering the revised business-ownership endeavor, the proposed economic impact did not rise to the level of national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-02_06_B5203; source_row=43824 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the business plan projections were unsupported and did not establish substantial positive economic effects nationally or regionally. Assertions regarding affordable housing and innovative solutions were unsubstantiated. Working in an important field or a government-priority area does not alone establish 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 agreed the business plan projections were unsupported and did not establish substantial positive economic effects nationally or regionally. Assertions regarding affordable housing and innovative solutions were unsubstantiated. Working in an important field or a government-priority area does not alone establish national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2025-04-02_10_B5203; source_row=43837 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c