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.
The Petitioner did not establish that either award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of sound design and editing. For the second award, the IMDB evidence was discounted as unreliable, and the award organization's own evidence did not corroborate the Petitioner's individual receipt of the award; moreover, the claimed award was in a lesser 'plaqued' category rather than a major category.
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 establish that either award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of sound design and editing. For the second award, the IMDB evidence was discounted as unreliable, and the award organization's own evidence did not corroborate the Petitioner's individual receipt of the award; moreover, the claimed award was in a lesser 'plaqued' category rather than a major category.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-16_01_B2203; source_row=29238 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner compared his salary to average/median salaries for lower-level positions (sound engineers, sound designers, sound mixers) rather than to others in his actual position as a supervising sound designer and editor, making the comparison inapt.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner compared his salary to average/median salaries for lower-level positions (sound engineers, sound designers, sound mixers) rather than to others in his actual position as a supervising sound designer and editor, making the comparison inapt.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-16_01_B2203; source_row=29242 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the awards—Clio Entertainment Awards, One Show Gold Pencil, and Webby Award—are notable professional achievements but do not rise to the level of a major, internationally recognized award, as the Petitioner did not show that winners are widely reported by international media, recognized by the general public, or receive attention comparable to awards like the Academy Award.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the awards—Clio Entertainment Awards, One Show Gold Pencil, and Webby Award—are notable professional achievements but do not rise to the level of a major, internationally recognized award, as the Petitioner did not show that winners are widely reported by international media, recognized by the general public, or receive attention comparable to awards like the Academy Award.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_01_B2203; source_row=29223 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO affirmed the Director's conclusion, finding that credited involvement in a series is insufficient and the Petitioner did not provide evidence of box office receipts or comparable sales data to demonstrate commercial success relative to others in the industry.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed the Director's conclusion, finding that credited involvement in a series is insufficient and the Petitioner did not provide evidence of box office receipts or comparable sales data to demonstrate commercial success relative to others in the industry.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_01_B2203; source_row=29228 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
High salary or other significantly high remuneration for services
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to adequately document his previous earnings. The bid package submitted did not support his claimed $300,000 salary, and no earnings statements, W-2s, 1099s, or personal tax returns were provided to establish actual past remuneration.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner failed to adequately document his previous earnings. The bid package submitted did not support his claimed $300,000 salary, and no earnings statements, W-2s, 1099s, or personal tax returns were provided to establish actual past remuneration.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_01_B2203; source_row=29227 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
What the decision said
AAO deemed this criterion waived on appeal because the Petitioner did not claim or explain how the evidence satisfied criterion (iii), did not reference it in his appellate brief, and did not point to a specific error by the Director.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO deemed this criterion waived on appeal because the Petitioner did not claim or explain how the evidence satisfied criterion (iii), did not reference it in his appellate brief, and did not point to a specific error by the Director.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_01_B2203; source_row=29225 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the Petitioner satisfied criterion (i) based on his Webby Award, concluding that the annual Webby Awards receive a level of national recognition that extends to major industry publications, entertainment media, and mainstream media—even though not at the level of a one-time achievement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Petitioner satisfied criterion (i) based on his Webby Award, concluding that the annual Webby Awards receive a level of national recognition that extends to major industry publications, entertainment media, and mainstream media—even though not at the level of a one-time achievement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_01_B2203; source_row=29224 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the step-1 threshold, but observed in dicta that the record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the step-1 threshold, but observed in dicta that the record does not demonstrate the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_01_B2203; source_row=29229 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
What the decision said
AAO declined to evaluate this criterion because the Director provided no analysis, and remanded for consideration of all evidence and claims at each step of adjudication.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to evaluate this criterion because the Director provided no analysis, and remanded for consideration of all evidence and claims at each step of adjudication.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-15_02_B2203; source_row=29232 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c