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 9971–9980
NIWNIW · National importanceNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial merit and national importance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was fundamentally unclear due to materially inconsistent descriptions between her initial filing (supply chain manager for U.S. companies) and her RFE response (cosmetic import and manufacturing company).…
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 proposed endeavor was fundamentally unclear due to materially inconsistent descriptions between her initial filing (supply chain manager for U.S. companies) and her RFE response (cosmetic import and manufacturing company). Neither endeavor was supported by sufficient evidence of national-level impact, and the post-filing establishment of a new company could not retroactively establish eligibility. General assertions about the value of supply chain management did not impute national importance to any one particular manager's activities.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-02_01_B5203; source_row=29685 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
on balance, beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement
What the decision said
AAO expressly declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner had not met the first prong and further analysis would serve no meaningful purpose.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO expressly declined to reach the third prong because the Petitioner had not met the first prong and further analysis would serve no meaningful purpose.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-02_01_B5203; source_row=29687 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
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 expressly declined to reach the second prong because the Petitioner had not met the first prong and further analysis would serve no meaningful purpose.
Why this is useful
Identify the progress, resources, outside interest, or record-to-plan connection that AAO expected to see.
View full reasoning +
AAO expressly declined to reach the second prong because the Petitioner had not met the first prong and further analysis would serve no meaningful purpose.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-02_01_B5203; source_row=29686 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
intent to continue work in area of expertise in the United States
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding on intent to continue work in his area of expertise, AAO deemed the issue waived and affirmed denial on this ground as dispositive.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner did not contest the Director's finding on intent to continue work in his area of expertise, AAO deemed the issue waived and affirmed denial on this ground as dispositive.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-08-01_01_B2203; source_row=29684 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherPostdoctoral Researcher
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that expert letters providing concrete examples of how the Petitioner's work has been adopted and relied upon by other researchers, media coverage, and recognition by an international task force collectively demonstrated original contributions of major significance. AAO withdrew the Director's contrary determination.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that expert letters providing concrete examples of how the Petitioner's work has been adopted and relied upon by other researchers, media coverage, and recognition by an international task force collectively demonstrated original contributions of major significance. AAO withdrew the Director's contrary determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-07-29_01_B2203; source_row=29680 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient: the Petitioner's athletic acclaim was not sustained past 2017, he had not competed successfully since arriving in the U.S. in 2019, his media coverage ended in March 2017, and his coaching achievements did not demonstrate recognition at the national or international level placing him at the top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient: the Petitioner's athletic acclaim was not sustained past 2017, he had not competed successfully since arriving in the U.S. in 2019, his media coverage ended in March 2017, and his coaching achievements did not demonstrate recognition at the national or international level placing him at the top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-07-28_01_B2203; source_row=29665 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other28 papers27 citations
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although the Petitioner's research on replicating a neurological phenomenon in an animal model is original and unique, the record fails to show that his contributions have been widely implemented, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to the level of major significance.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Although the Petitioner's research on replicating a neurological phenomenon in an animal model is original and unique, the record fails to show that his contributions have been widely implemented, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to the level of major significance. Many reference letters speak only to potential future impact rather than demonstrating actual current significance, and citation evidence is modest.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-07-28_03_B2203; source_row=29676 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c