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 9911–9920
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 declined to reach a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence threshold, though it noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence threshold, though it noted the aggregate record does not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-16_01_B2203; source_row=29774 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO had found the Petitioner did not establish he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor because his original proposed endeavor was medical research but he lacked any experience in that area; his shift to a physician endeavor was an impermissible material change to the petition. The motion did not address these findings or provide new supporting evidence.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO had found the Petitioner did not establish he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor because his original proposed endeavor was medical research but he lacked any experience in that area; his shift to a physician endeavor was an impermissible material change to the petition. The motion did not address these findings or provide new supporting evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-12_01_B5203; source_row=29768 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
While the Petitioner's work as a security consultant has substantial merit, it does not rise to the level of national importance. The proposed endeavor does not sufficiently extend beyond her business and future clientele to impact the broader field or economy.…
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 +
While the Petitioner's work as a security consultant has substantial merit, it does not rise to the level of national importance. The proposed endeavor does not sufficiently extend beyond her business and future clientele to impact the broader field or economy. The business plan's revenue and job creation projections lacked supporting evidence and detail, and the Petitioner failed to show significant prospective economic impact at the regional or national level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-10_04_B5203; source_row=29764 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
official academic record relating to area of exceptional ability
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found no qualifying academic record: the Petitioner attended law school but did not complete it, and law school does not relate to her claimed area of exceptional ability.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found no qualifying academic record: the Petitioner attended law school but did not complete it, and law school does not relate to her claimed area of exceptional ability.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-10_01_B5203; source_row=29754 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherPhysician
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the COVID-19 pandemic argument inapplicable because the petition was filed in April 2019, predating the pandemic, and eligibility must be established at the time of filing. General industry reports did not address the specific 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 the COVID-19 pandemic argument inapplicable because the petition was filed in April 2019, predating the pandemic, and eligibility must be established at the time of filing. General industry reports did not address the specific endeavor. The business plan showed minimal staffing (three identified employees) at a home residential address not shown to be in an economically depressed area, and the record contained no specific data showing national or global implications from the company's operations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-10_02_B5203; source_row=29760 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the credibility of the Beneficiary's employment history was undermined by repeated omissions across three DS-160 forms, that the pay statements lacked actual pay dates and contained identical errors suggesting they were generated for a different purpose, and that even crediting the undisputed employer letter the Beneficiary's full-time employment at that company was only ~17 months and 3 weeks—short of 24 mo…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the credibility of the Beneficiary's employment history was undermined by repeated omissions across three DS-160 forms, that the pay statements lacked actual pay dates and contained identical errors suggesting they were generated for a different purpose, and that even crediting the undisputed employer letter the Beneficiary's full-time employment at that company was only ~17 months and 3 weeks—short of 24 months.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-10_03_B5203; source_row=29763 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c