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 10901–10910
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Petitioner's career — spanning 14 years with one award-winning feature film, a few award-winning short films, and documentary work — did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.…
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's career — spanning 14 years with one award-winning feature film, a few award-winning short films, and documentary work — did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Awards were not followed by continued activity or recognition, festival appearances were of limited demonstrable significance, the television documentary project was unverified as completed, judging was limited to a single event, and testimonial letters were too general to establish impact of major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-08-30_01_B2203; source_row=28453 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 determined the Petitioner's exhibitions drew only local media attention, her commercial success in photography and clothing was modest, and the supporting evidence did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB-1A classification.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO determined the Petitioner's exhibitions drew only local media attention, her commercial success in photography and clothing was modest, and the supporting evidence did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB-1A classification.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-08-30_02_B2203; source_row=28462 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found the new Vogue Ukraine 2014 article, which focused on the Petitioner and her photography in connection with a perfume store opening, combined with readership figures showing Vogue Ukraine's leading position among Ukrainian fashion titles, established that this article appeared in major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the new Vogue Ukraine 2014 article, which focused on the Petitioner and her photography in connection with a perfume store opening, combined with readership figures showing Vogue Ukraine's leading position among Ukrainian fashion titles, established that this article appeared in major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-08-30_02_B2203; source_row=28457 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
What the decision said
AAO declined to consider new evidence and arguments under this criterion because the Petitioner had not raised it or submitted new evidence on this criterion in her third (most recent prior) motion. The scope of the present motion is limited to AAO's prior decision.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to consider new evidence and arguments under this criterion because the Petitioner had not raised it or submitted new evidence on this criterion in her third (most recent prior) motion. The scope of the present motion is limited to AAO's prior decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-08-30_02_B2203; source_row=28458 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration
What the decision said
AAO did not need to reach this criterion because the Petitioner had already met three criteria; AAO instead considered the salary evidence in the final merits determination.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO did not need to reach this criterion because the Petitioner had already met three criteria; AAO instead considered the salary evidence in the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-08-30_02_B2203; source_row=28461 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c