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 12121–12130
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO concluded that the totality of evidence—including an industry award, leading corporate positions, compensation, published articles, and editorial board membership—established a successful career but not sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field. The post-2015 inactivity was not the deciding factor but was one consideration in the overall analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO concluded that the totality of evidence—including an industry award, leading corporate positions, compensation, published articles, and editorial board membership—established a successful career but not sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field. The post-2015 inactivity was not the deciding factor but was one consideration in the overall analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_04_B2203; source_row=26883 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
AAO concluded the recommendation letters and citation evidence describe originality and prospective benefit but do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's contributions have already been widely implemented or had remarkable influence on the field. Seven citations and unsupported broad praise are insufficient.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO concluded the recommendation letters and citation evidence describe originality and prospective benefit but do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's contributions have already been widely implemented or had remarkable influence on the field. Seven citations and unsupported broad praise are insufficient.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_09_B2203; source_row=26908 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO clarified that it did not require bylaws but noted the letters lacked detail about membership requirements and did not address the separate requirement that recognized national or international experts judge prospective members.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO clarified that it did not require bylaws but noted the letters lacked detail about membership requirements and did not address the separate requirement that recognized national or international experts judge prospective members.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_13_B2203; source_row=26930 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Business / Management20 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original business-related contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held that the letters did not establish that the Petitioner's activities had remarkable impact in the field beyond his own companies, and noted USCIS policy guidance that letters must specifically articulate how contributions are of major significance and discuss impact on subsequent work.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that the letters did not establish that the Petitioner's activities had remarkable impact in the field beyond his own companies, and noted USCIS policy guidance that letters must specifically articulate how contributions are of major significance and discuss impact on subsequent work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_13_B2203; source_row=26933 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held that unpublished decisions do not bind USCIS, the facts were distinguishable, the Petitioner did not provide adequate corroborative circulation evidence for the Brazilian newspapers, and the motion did not address that 18 articles either lacked any reference to him or omitted required date/author information.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that unpublished decisions do not bind USCIS, the facts were distinguishable, the Petitioner did not provide adequate corroborative circulation evidence for the Brazilian newspapers, and the motion did not address that 18 articles either lacked any reference to him or omitted required date/author information.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_13_B2203; source_row=26931 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO held that even if the Petitioner could be considered the recipient, the motion did not address AAO's separate determination that the recognition plaque and CEL survey rating were not nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO held that even if the Petitioner could be considered the recipient, the motion did not address AAO's separate determination that the recognition plaque and CEL survey rating were not nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_13_B2203; source_row=26929 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider – incorrect application of law or policy
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that the NOIR properly advised the Petitioner of the full multi-part Kazarian analysis and that the final merits determination was within its scope. As to the unemployment argument, the Petitioner failed to explain how law or policy was misapplied, and a motion to reconsider cannot consider new facts or evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that the NOIR properly advised the Petitioner of the full multi-part Kazarian analysis and that the final merits determination was within its scope. As to the unemployment argument, the Petitioner failed to explain how law or policy was misapplied, and a motion to reconsider cannot consider new facts or evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_04_B2203; source_row=26881 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reopen – new facts and ineffective assistance of counsel
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that there is no remedy available for use of an unlicensed representative, and that the claimed ineffective assistance of licensed counsel did not prejudice the outcome because the appeal was resolved solely on the merits of the extraordinary ability claim without reliance on the disputed credibility issues.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that there is no remedy available for use of an unlicensed representative, and that the claimed ineffective assistance of licensed counsel did not prejudice the outcome because the appeal was resolved solely on the merits of the extraordinary ability claim without reliance on the disputed credibility issues. The new facts provided did not overcome the prior determination of no sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_04_B2203; source_row=26882 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherMaster’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold. In an advisory observation, AAO noted the record did not establish 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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold. In an advisory observation, AAO noted the record did not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_02_B2203; source_row=26878 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c