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 13431–13440
EB-1AEB-1A · High remunerationNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · High remuneration
high salary
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the expert's comparison to national median salary insufficient because it did not account for local wage variances, and noted that both the SalaryList data and FLCDC data (putting the prevailing Level 4 wage at $92,955) indicated the Beneficiary's salary was above average but not 'high' as required.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the expert's comparison to national median salary insufficient because it did not account for local wage variances, and noted that both the SalaryList data and FLCDC data (putting the prevailing Level 4 wage at $92,955) indicated the Beneficiary's salary was above average but not 'high' as required.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_05_B2203; source_row=25353 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
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed that evidence could be considered for multiple criteria simultaneously, but maintained that the evidence — including marketing materials, independent clinical studies of the panel product, and letters about a licensed patent — demonstrated financial and competitive impact on specific companies but not major significance in the broader field of molecular diagnostics.…
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed that evidence could be considered for multiple criteria simultaneously, but maintained that the evidence — including marketing materials, independent clinical studies of the panel product, and letters about a licensed patent — demonstrated financial and competitive impact on specific companies but not major significance in the broader field of molecular diagnostics. AAO found no improper novel evidentiary requirements were imposed.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_05_B2203; source_row=25354 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO disagreed with the Director's interpretation that this criterion is limited to visual artists, noting the regulation requires only that the work displayed be the petitioner's own and that the venues be artistic exhibitions or showcases. AAO found certain exhibitions or showcases featuring performing artists meet the plain language of the regulation and remanded for re-examination of the evidence.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's interpretation that this criterion is limited to visual artists, noting the regulation requires only that the work displayed be the petitioner's own and that the venues be artistic exhibitions or showcases. AAO found certain exhibitions or showcases featuring performing artists meet the plain language of the regulation and remanded for re-examination of the evidence.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_04_B2203; source_row=25351 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that a single letter alone sufficiently establishes the Petitioner's participation as a judge, noting the absence of supporting documentation such as evidence that acting awards were given in the relevant years.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that a single letter alone sufficiently establishes the Petitioner's participation as a judge, noting the absence of supporting documentation such as evidence that acting awards were given in the relevant years.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_04_B2203; source_row=25350 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
OtherEngineer
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination – sustained national or international acclaim
What the decision said
AAO declined to formally conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the aggregate the record does not support sustained 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 conduct a final merits determination because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three criteria, but noted in the aggregate the record does not support sustained acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_01_B2203; source_row=25338 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputation
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's one-paragraph analysis contained no specific references to the evidence or arguments presented with the petition or in the RFE response, and found the Director's decision deficient in this regard. The matter is remanded for adequate analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's one-paragraph analysis contained no specific references to the evidence or arguments presented with the petition or in the RFE response, and found the Director's decision deficient in this regard. The matter is remanded for adequate analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_04_B2203; source_row=25352 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO agreed the criterion was not established on the current record but found the Director's analysis wholly inadequate, as it did not address the evidence or the Petitioner's RFE response and provided no explanation for why specific evidence failed. AAO remanded for a full analysis.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO agreed the criterion was not established on the current record but found the Director's analysis wholly inadequate, as it did not address the evidence or the Petitioner's RFE response and provided no explanation for why specific evidence failed. AAO remanded for a full analysis.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2020-03-05_04_B2203; source_row=25349 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c