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 12541–12550
EB-1Aprocedural or otherNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
procedural or other
Motion to Reconsider — Legal/Policy Error
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not identify or rebut any specific errors in the AAO's prior decision, instead merely submitting what was essentially the same brief as the appeal. A motion to reconsider requires the moving party to specify factual or legal issues decided in error or overlooked, not to generally allege error.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not identify or rebut any specific errors in the AAO's prior decision, instead merely submitting what was essentially the same brief as the appeal. A motion to reconsider requires the moving party to specify factual or legal issues decided in error or overlooked, not to generally allege error.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-10-05_02_B2203; source_row=26395 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO declined to consider the additional claimed criteria because the three-criterion threshold was already satisfied; it also deemed the comparable-evidence claim moot.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO declined to consider the additional claimed criteria because the three-criterion threshold was already satisfied; it also deemed the comparable-evidence claim moot.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-10-05_03_B2203; source_row=26399 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary relative to others in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The petitioner raised this criterion for the first time in the third motion, submitting a business license, trademark registration, and a tax clearance certificate showing total net income. AAO found the assertion that this income was higher than 90% of café owners was unsupported by evidence in the record.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The petitioner raised this criterion for the first time in the third motion, submitting a business license, trademark registration, and a tax clearance certificate showing total net income. AAO found the assertion that this income was higher than 90% of café owners was unsupported by evidence in the record.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-10-05_04_B2203; source_row=26404 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
The AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step one. In dicta, the AAO noted the record does not support sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The AAO declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria at step one. In dicta, the AAO noted the record does not support sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-10-05_06_B2203; source_row=26416 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 in the field
Why AAO was not persuaded
The AAO found that reviving an ancient style using classical themes is not inherently original, and the submitted letters had anomalies (shared language, references to 'customers' and 'young scientists') that diminished their evidentiary weight. The Petitioner's reinterpretation of the regulatory language was rejected, and skill in an existing technique is not original.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO found that reviving an ancient style using classical themes is not inherently original, and the submitted letters had anomalies (shared language, references to 'customers' and 'young scientists') that diminished their evidentiary weight. The Petitioner's reinterpretation of the regulatory language was rejected, and skill in an existing technique is not original.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-10-05_06_B2203; source_row=26413 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
What the decision said
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination because the threshold step-1 requirement was not met, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability in any event.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination because the threshold step-1 requirement was not met, but noted in dicta that the record would not support a finding of extraordinary ability in any event.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-10-05_08_B2203; source_row=26425 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c