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.
NIWEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — exceptional ability
What the decision said
Because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold of three criteria, AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination, though it noted the aggregate record would not support such a finding.
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 meet the threshold of three criteria, AAO did not conduct a formal final merits determination, though it noted the aggregate record would not support such a finding.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-27_02_B5203; source_row=27694 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's team championship awards and individual awards including the all-star team selection reported in L'Equipe satisfied this criterion.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the Petitioner's team championship awards and individual awards including the all-star team selection reported in L'Equipe satisfied this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-27_03_B2203; source_row=27698 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or remuneration in relation to others in the field
What the decision said
AAO noted that the Petitioner's counsel did not contest the Director's findings on this criterion and did not offer additional arguments, and therefore considered the issue abandoned.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted that the Petitioner's counsel did not contest the Director's findings on this criterion and did not offer additional arguments, and therefore considered the issue abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-27_03_B2203; source_row=27704 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-1 threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support 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 the final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the step-1 threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-27_01_B2203; source_row=27680 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
FinanceManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO found that evidence regarding the Beneficiary's roles with one investment company (establishing it from the ground up, managing 150 employees and 10 billion rubles in assets, award nominations) established a leading role for that organization with a distinguished reputation, though similar evidence for other organizations was insufficient.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that evidence regarding the Beneficiary's roles with one investment company (establishing it from the ground up, managing 150 employees and 10 billion rubles in assets, award nominations) established a leading role for that organization with a distinguished reputation, though similar evidence for other organizations was insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-27_02_B2203; source_row=27687 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
FinanceManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance to the field
What the decision said
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner could not meet three criteria regardless, making a finding on criterion v unnecessary to the outcome.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved this criterion because the Petitioner could not meet three criteria regardless, making a finding on criterion v unnecessary to the outcome.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-05-27_02_B2203; source_row=27689 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c