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 12151–12160
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / Management20 papers
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach this criterion because, even if met, the Petitioner could not satisfy the three-criteria initial evidence requirement.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to reach this criterion because, even if met, the Petitioner could not satisfy the three-criteria initial evidence requirement.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_13_B2203; source_row=26935 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 a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence threshold of three criteria, though it noted in dicta that the record would not support the required showing.
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 failed to meet the initial evidence threshold of three criteria, though it noted in dicta that the record would not support the required showing.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_05_B2203; source_row=26887 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherBachelor’s
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
Why the evidence was persuasive
AAO disagreed with the Director and found that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his current role as project commercial manager with the petitioning company. The evidence showed he was specifically recruited to lead commercial and contractual aspects of one of the company's largest P3 rail projects and to help shape the company's regional strategy, establishing both a critical role and the company's distinguishe…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director and found that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his current role as project commercial manager with the petitioning company. The evidence showed he was specifically recruited to lead commercial and contractual aspects of one of the company's largest P3 rail projects and to help shape the company's regional strategy, establishing both a critical role and the company's distinguished reputation.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_14_B2203; source_row=26940 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience as physical therapist
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO had previously affirmed and on motion declines to consider the new evidence, which was available earlier; even if considered, it would not resolve the discrepancies under Matter of Ho.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO had previously affirmed and on motion declines to consider the new evidence, which was available earlier; even if considered, it would not resolve the discrepancies under Matter of Ho.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2021-01-29_01_B5203; source_row=26874 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c