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 9541–9550
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider – Legal/Policy Error
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not identify any law or USCIS policy that was inconsistently applied; he merely reasserted previously considered arguments and evidence. AAO found that originality and major significance are separate elements, and that the State Farm arbitrary-and-capricious standard was not met given the comprehensive nature of AAO's prior analysis.
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 identify any law or USCIS policy that was inconsistently applied; he merely reasserted previously considered arguments and evidence. AAO found that originality and major significance are separate elements, and that the State Farm arbitrary-and-capricious standard was not met given the comprehensive nature of AAO's prior analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-31_02_B2203; source_row=30310 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen – New Facts and Evidence
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Rolling Stone article post-dated the filing and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing. The new reference letters were similar in content to prior submissions and, while showing influence on individuals, did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Rolling Stone article post-dated the filing and could not establish eligibility at the time of filing. The new reference letters were similar in content to prior submissions and, while showing influence on individuals, did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-31_02_B2203; source_row=30309 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. The Petitioner merely reasserted prior arguments without identifying a legal or policy error.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed its prior finding that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. The Petitioner merely reasserted prior arguments without identifying a legal or policy error.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-31_02_B2203; source_row=30311 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO found the Director's treatment of the third prong inadequate because it did not address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence or explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director's treatment of the third prong inadequate because it did not address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence or explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-31_01_B5203; source_row=30308 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Well positionedReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · Well positioned
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
What the decision said
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's decision did not adequately discuss the evidence or sufficiently explain the basis for the adverse determination under Dhanasar's second prong.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's decision did not adequately discuss the evidence or sufficiently explain the basis for the adverse determination under Dhanasar's second prong.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-31_01_B5203; source_row=30307 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Computer Science / AI
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
What the decision said
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director failed to give due consideration to the evidence, noting that the Director listed but did not evaluate the documentation, and remanded for proper analysis.
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 with the Petitioner that the Director failed to give due consideration to the evidence, noting that the Director listed but did not evaluate the documentation, and remanded for proper analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-31_01_B5203; source_row=30306 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that this criterion was met. The Petitioner's speaking engagements were short-term guest appearances, not leading/critical roles. His current employer lacked a demonstrated distinguished reputation, as the evidence of recognition (analyst reports, magazine features) was insufficient to establish eminence.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that this criterion was met. The Petitioner's speaking engagements were short-term guest appearances, not leading/critical roles. His current employer lacked a demonstrated distinguished reputation, as the evidence of recognition (analyst reports, magazine features) was insufficient to establish eminence. Work for prior employers involved individual projects rather than roles in divisions or departments.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-28_01_B2203; source_row=30301 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's work benefited his employers and clients commercially, but the letters asserting major significance lacked explanation of how contributions benefited the broader field. Several letters were nearly identical, undermining their persuasive value. Contracts and licenses showed usefulness to customers but not industry-wide major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's work benefited his employers and clients commercially, but the letters asserting major significance lacked explanation of how contributions benefited the broader field. Several letters were nearly identical, undermining their persuasive value. Contracts and licenses showed usefulness to customers but not industry-wide major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-28_01_B2203; source_row=30299 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 agreed that while the Petitioner's proposed work has substantial merit, the evidence did not show that his competitive or coaching activities would have broader implications beyond his immediate students and club, which is the standard required for national importance under Dhanasar. His unique techniques were not shown to have been widely adopted or to prospectively broadly influence the sport.
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 while the Petitioner's proposed work has substantial merit, the evidence did not show that his competitive or coaching activities would have broader implications beyond his immediate students and club, which is the standard required for national importance under Dhanasar. His unique techniques were not shown to have been widely adopted or to prospectively broadly influence the sport.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-10-28_01_B5203; source_row=30303 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c