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.
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 expressly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the Step 1 threshold, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record did not show 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 expressly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the Step 1 threshold, but noted in dicta that the aggregate record did not show the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-29_01_B2203; source_row=26093 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 had previously determined the two documentary films were not of major significance. On motion, the Petitioner re-quoted general praise letters without identifying specific contributions or showing major significance, and did not address or rebut the specific conclusions in the appellate decision.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The AAO had previously determined the two documentary films were not of major significance. On motion, the Petitioner re-quoted general praise letters without identifying specific contributions or showing major significance, and did not address or rebut the specific conclusions in the appellate decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-28_02_B2203; source_row=26086 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Why AAO was not persuaded
The new media kit did not provide a basis for comparison with other U.S.-based news sites, and therefore did not establish the site as major media. The Petitioner's motion merely repeated the appellate brief and quoted materials whose content the AAO had not disputed, neither of which establishes error in the prior decision.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The new media kit did not provide a basis for comparison with other U.S.-based news sites, and therefore did not establish the site as major media. The Petitioner's motion merely repeated the appellate brief and quoted materials whose content the AAO had not disputed, neither of which establishes error in the prior decision.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-28_02_B2203; source_row=26084 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO had previously acknowledged international participation in the BIPA but found that participation does not establish recognition of the award. On motion, the Petitioner did not explain how that conclusion was in error. Claims about other awards had been abandoned on appeal and the Petitioner's assertion of involvement in an award-winning film was not the same as receipt of a prize.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO had previously acknowledged international participation in the BIPA but found that participation does not establish recognition of the award. On motion, the Petitioner did not explain how that conclusion was in error. Claims about other awards had been abandoned on appeal and the Petitioner's assertion of involvement in an award-winning film was not the same as receipt of a prize.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-28_02_B2203; source_row=26083 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner abandoned the moderator claim on appeal, and on motion provided no new information about those events and no basis for concluding the prior decision was in error. The separate judging claim the Petitioner raised on appeal was rejected because the Petitioner had not established the activity was in the same or allied field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner abandoned the moderator claim on appeal, and on motion provided no new information about those events and no basis for concluding the prior decision was in error. The separate judging claim the Petitioner raised on appeal was rejected because the Petitioner had not established the activity was in the same or allied field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-28_02_B2203; source_row=26085 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
In the prior appellate decision, AAO determined that the Petitioner had satisfied criterion (vii) for display at artistic exhibitions or showcases, disagreeing with the Director's silence on this point.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
In the prior appellate decision, AAO determined that the Petitioner had satisfied criterion (vii) for display at artistic exhibitions or showcases, disagreeing with the Director's silence on this point.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-07-28_02_B2203; source_row=26087 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c