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 reserved determination on memberships on appeal because the Petitioner did not raise arguments contesting the Director's finding; on motion, AAO confirmed the claim was waived by not asserting it on appeal.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved determination on memberships on appeal because the Petitioner did not raise arguments contesting the Director's finding; on motion, AAO confirmed the claim was waived by not asserting it on appeal.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_07_B2203; source_row=26354 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination — sustained national or international acclaim
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO reaffirmed its prior conclusion that the Petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim. She failed to document her swimming career comprehensively, did not show awards or competition against top swimmers between 2015/2016 and her filing date, and her new evidence on motion still did not establish she is among the very top of her field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reaffirmed its prior conclusion that the Petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim. She failed to document her swimming career comprehensively, did not show awards or competition against top swimmers between 2015/2016 and her filing date, and her new evidence on motion still did not establish she is among the very top of her field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_06_B2203; source_row=26352 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot pursuedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
What the decision said
AAO noted that the Petitioner initially claimed this criterion but did not address it in response to the RFE or on appeal, and therefore considered the issue abandoned.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO noted that the Petitioner initially claimed this criterion but did not address it in response to the RFE or on appeal, and therefore considered the issue abandoned.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_05_B2203; source_row=26349 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 declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the step-1 threshold, but noted in an advisory capacity 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 conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the step-1 threshold, but noted in an advisory capacity that the record does not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-24_05_B2203; source_row=26351 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
Why AAO was not persuaded
Although not required to conduct a final merits determination given the failure to meet three criteria, AAO reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded it does not support a finding of the required sustained acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although not required to conduct a final merits determination given the failure to meet three criteria, AAO reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded it does not support a finding of the required sustained acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-23_03_B2203; source_row=26317 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary's first-place certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. The evidence did not confirm she received a cash prize, the jury used no predetermined criteria, and the booth award was issued after the filing date and belonged to the employer rather than the Beneficiary.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary's first-place certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. The evidence did not confirm she received a cash prize, the jury used no predetermined criteria, and the booth award was issued after the filing date and belonged to the employer rather than the Beneficiary.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-23_03_B2203; source_row=26311 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Although AAO disagreed with the Director's reasoning that the Beneficiary is not a visual artist, AAO nonetheless found insufficient corroborating evidence that the Beneficiary's work was actually displayed at the listed exhibitions, as the documentation variously failed to name the Beneficiary, lacked identifying information about artists, or merely documented her employer's presence rather than a display of her individual…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Although AAO disagreed with the Director's reasoning that the Beneficiary is not a visual artist, AAO nonetheless found insufficient corroborating evidence that the Beneficiary's work was actually displayed at the listed exhibitions, as the documentation variously failed to name the Beneficiary, lacked identifying information about artists, or merely documented her employer's presence rather than a display of her individual artistic work.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-09-23_03_B2203; source_row=26314 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c