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.
Ability to pay combined proffered wages for all I-140 beneficiaries
Why AAO was not persuaded
Because the Petitioner filed multiple I-140 petitions for other beneficiaries, it must show ability to pay the combined wage burden. The record contains no information about those other petitions, so ability to pay cannot be established on the current record.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Because the Petitioner filed multiple I-140 petitions for other beneficiaries, it must show ability to pay the combined wage burden. The record contains no information about those other petitions, so ability to pay cannot be established on the current record.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-12_01_B5203; source_row=26166 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Five years of qualifying experience by priority date
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa application conflicts with the labor certification's claimed prior employment history, and the Petitioner's own experience letter shows signs of a separately-appended signature page inconsistent with the rest of the document. These unresolved inconsistencies prevent a finding that the Beneficiary has the required five years of qualifying experience.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa application conflicts with the labor certification's claimed prior employment history, and the Petitioner's own experience letter shows signs of a separately-appended signature page inconsistent with the rest of the document. These unresolved inconsistencies prevent a finding that the Beneficiary has the required five years of qualifying experience.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-12_01_B5203; source_row=26167 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Business / ManagementManager
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance in the field
What the decision said
AAO reserved judgment on this criterion as moot because the Petitioner could meet at most two criteria (vi plus v), which is still below the required threshold of three.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved judgment on this criterion as moot because the Petitioner could meet at most two criteria (vi plus v), which is still below the required threshold of three.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-12_03_B2203; source_row=26178 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed the criterion was met based on a single co-authored article published in The Physics of Metals and Metallography, though untranslated conference papers could not be considered.
Why this is useful
See how AAO evaluated whether the work qualified as scholarly authorship and what it showed in the full record.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion was met based on a single co-authored article published in The Physics of Metals and Metallography, though untranslated conference papers could not be considered.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-12_03_B2203; source_row=26179 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing EngineeringEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the work was not original (finding it was), but agreed that the contributions had not been shown to be of major significance. Reference letters showed the work was useful to other researchers but did not demonstrate remarkable impact on the field; citation data was based on flawed search criteria; and commercial sales of industrial products did not show impact extending beyond…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that the work was not original (finding it was), but agreed that the contributions had not been shown to be of major significance. Reference letters showed the work was useful to other researchers but did not demonstrate remarkable impact on the field; citation data was based on flawed search criteria; and commercial sales of industrial products did not show impact extending beyond the Petitioner's employer.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-11_01_B2203; source_row=26152 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the petitioner
Why AAO was not persuaded
Petitioner merely requested reconsideration without identifying legal error; AAO reaffirmed prior findings that the articles either were not about the Petitioner, lacked an author, or were not shown to appear in professional/major trade publications or other major media.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner merely requested reconsideration without identifying legal error; AAO reaffirmed prior findings that the articles either were not about the Petitioner, lacked an author, or were not shown to appear in professional/major trade publications or other major media.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-11_02_B2203; source_row=26156 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
Petitioner submitted no new evidence and did not identify any legal error; AAO reaffirmed that the record does not show the national or international significance of the kickboxing/Muay Thai awards he received.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner submitted no new evidence and did not identify any legal error; AAO reaffirmed that the record does not show the national or international significance of the kickboxing/Muay Thai awards he received.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-11_02_B2203; source_row=26155 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The new IFMA rules excerpt distinguishes referees (who do not mark a scoring paper) from judges (who score contests). The Petitioner served as a referee, and submitted no evidence that his actual duties involved evaluating competitors rather than enforcing rules.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The new IFMA rules excerpt distinguishes referees (who do not mark a scoring paper) from judges (who score contests). The Petitioner served as a referee, and submitted no evidence that his actual duties involved evaluating competitors rather than enforcing rules.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-11_02_B2203; source_row=26157 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mechanical / Manufacturing EngineeringEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO explicitly declined to conduct the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
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 the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold of three criteria, but noted in dicta that the record does not support sustained national or international acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-08-11_01_B2203; source_row=26154 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c