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 found the Director imposed requirements not in the regulatory text and withdrew that portion of the decision. The record shows the Petitioner's films were displayed at multiple film festivals whose purpose was primarily or entirely to display films as artistic works.
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 imposed requirements not in the regulatory text and withdrew that portion of the decision. The record shows the Petitioner's films were displayed at multiple film festivals whose purpose was primarily or entirely to display films as artistic works.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-11-27_06_B2203; source_row=26648 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed that the evidence of jury service at multiple film festivals, including for particular prizes and full prize slates, satisfies the criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that the evidence of jury service at multiple film festivals, including for particular prizes and full prize slates, satisfies the criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-11-27_06_B2203; source_row=26647 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary or significantly high remuneration
What the decision said
AAO did not separately resolve whether the high salary criterion was met because the Petitioner had already established the requisite three criteria; instead AAO considered the salary evidence as part of 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 separately resolve whether the high salary criterion was met because the Petitioner had already established the requisite three criteria; instead AAO considered the salary evidence as part of the final merits determination.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-11-27_07_B2203; source_row=26656 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director that the evidence of thesis evaluation, editorial committee membership, legal essay competition participation, and student competition scoring was sufficient to meet this criterion.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Director that the evidence of thesis evaluation, editorial committee membership, legal essay competition participation, and student competition scoring was sufficient to meet this criterion.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-11-27_02_B2203; source_row=26614 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherProfessor
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the supporting letters lacked specifics about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed amendments, the proposed revisions had not been accepted into the final legislation at the time of filing, and the new evidence submitted on appeal was not accepted under the Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena rule since the Petitioner had already been notified of the deficiency.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the supporting letters lacked specifics about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed amendments, the proposed revisions had not been accepted into the final legislation at the time of filing, and the new evidence submitted on appeal was not accepted under the Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena rule since the Petitioner had already been notified of the deficiency.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-11-27_02_B2203; source_row=26615 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherProfessor
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to formally reach final merits because the initial evidence threshold was not met, but noted in advisory dicta that the record does 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 declined to formally reach final merits because the initial evidence threshold was not met, but noted in advisory dicta that the record does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-11-27_02_B2203; source_row=26617 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c