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.
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO declined to separately analyze this criterion on appeal, noting that because the petitioner already met four criteria, any additional criteria evidence is better considered in the final merits determination.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to separately analyze this criterion on appeal, noting that because the petitioner already met four criteria, any additional criteria evidence is better considered in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-27_01_B2203; source_row=29437 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the single 2016 article, Who's Who biography entry alongside 100 others, limited judging at non-prestigious exhibitions, two authored articles in one year, craft-fair displays without evidence of broad acclaim, a single international competition award without evidence of widespread recognition, unverified association membership, and reference letters praising but not demonstrating wide field impact collective…
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 single 2016 article, Who's Who biography entry alongside 100 others, limited judging at non-prestigious exhibitions, two authored articles in one year, craft-fair displays without evidence of broad acclaim, a single international competition award without evidence of widespread recognition, unverified association membership, and reference letters praising but not demonstrating wide field impact collectively failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for this classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-27_01_B2203; source_row=29438 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
While the record confirms originality and uniqueness, it does not establish that the Petitioner's work has been widely implemented, has remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or has risen to major significance. Reference letters speculating about future impact, media coverage, performances, and a licensing agreement all fall short of proving actual major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
While the record confirms originality and uniqueness, it does not establish that the Petitioner's work has been widely implemented, has remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or has risen to major significance. Reference letters speculating about future impact, media coverage, performances, and a licensing agreement all fall short of proving actual major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-26_03_B2203; source_row=29428 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the organization or its divisions had a distinguished reputation, and also failed to establish that his involvement in one campaign and one festival constituted a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole or any of its divisions.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the organization or its divisions had a distinguished reputation, and also failed to establish that his involvement in one campaign and one festival constituted a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole or any of its divisions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-26_03_B2203; source_row=29430 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
A grade at a summer program or a musical collaboration does not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award as referenced in the regulation. The Petitioner also failed to show that the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation so as to invoke comparable evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
A grade at a summer program or a musical collaboration does not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award as referenced in the regulation. The Petitioner also failed to show that the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation so as to invoke comparable evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-26_03_B2203; source_row=29426 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, it does not demonstrate national importance. Her proposed avionics services would not extend beyond her employer or company's clients to broadly impact the field or economy. Her training programs for young people would not benefit the field beyond the trainees themselves, and she did not demonstrate significant potential for U.S.…
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, it does not demonstrate national importance. Her proposed avionics services would not extend beyond her employer or company's clients to broadly impact the field or economy. Her training programs for young people would not benefit the field beyond the trainees themselves, and she did not demonstrate significant potential for U.S. job creation or substantial positive economic effects.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-05-26_01_B5203; source_row=29423 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c