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.
AAO withdrew the Director's determination because the evidence did not show the Petitioner held membership in I- or any other professional association at the time of filing the petition. The invoice was undated and the website pages were printed 10 months after the filing date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's determination because the evidence did not show the Petitioner held membership in I- or any other professional association at the time of filing the petition. The invoice was undated and the website pages were printed 10 months after the filing date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=29213 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
At least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's claim of over 20 years of experience was internally inconsistent — he was only 30 at the time of his RFE response and other evidence indicated he started working in 2010 at age 20. The employer letters were inadequate for the same reasons discussed under the advanced degree analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's claim of over 20 years of experience was internally inconsistent — he was only 30 at the time of his RFE response and other evidence indicated he started working in 2010 at age 20. The employer letters were inadequate for the same reasons discussed under the advanced degree analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=29212 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
The certificates reflected a typing proficiency test result and completion of a computer training course, not recognition for scientific contributions. The reference letters offered only general praise and did not support claims of significant scientific contributions to business computing.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The certificates reflected a typing proficiency test result and completion of a computer training course, not recognition for scientific contributions. The reference letters offered only general praise and did not support claims of significant scientific contributions to business computing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=29214 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Holds qualifying advanced degree (or equivalent via bachelor's + 5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience)
Why AAO was not persuaded
The credential evaluator improperly applied the H-1B 'three-for-one' rule, which is exclusively reserved for H-1B proceedings, and improperly relied on self-reported experience rather than employer letters. The submitted employer letters were unreliable due to identical language suggesting a common source, inconsistencies in employment periods, and failure to describe specific duties or confirm full-time status.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The credential evaluator improperly applied the H-1B 'three-for-one' rule, which is exclusively reserved for H-1B proceedings, and improperly relied on self-reported experience rather than employer letters. The submitted employer letters were unreliable due to identical language suggesting a common source, inconsistencies in employment periods, and failure to describe specific duties or confirm full-time status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-13_01_B5203; source_row=29210 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
final merits determination — sustained national/international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Director's final merits analysis was legally deficient in multiple ways: it improperly relied on unclaimed criteria as negative factors, contained internal contradictions about the Beneficiary's leading/critical role, and failed to weigh all qualifying evidence in totality. AAO remanded rather than resolving the merits.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Director's final merits analysis was legally deficient in multiple ways: it improperly relied on unclaimed criteria as negative factors, contained internal contradictions about the Beneficiary's leading/critical role, and failed to weigh all qualifying evidence in totality. AAO remanded rather than resolving the merits.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=29208 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Finance
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organization
Why the evidence was persuasive
The Director found the Beneficiary's role satisfied criterion (viii), and AAO noted this was internally contradicted in the Director's final merits discussion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Director found the Beneficiary's role satisfied criterion (viii), and AAO noted this was internally contradicted in the Director's final merits discussion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-11_01_B2203; source_row=29206 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that while the Petitioner documented some sales, the record lacked comparative information to establish that her remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in her field, which is required by the criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that while the Petitioner documented some sales, the record lacked comparative information to establish that her remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in her field, which is required by the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2022-03-10_02_B2203; source_row=29199 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c