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 13971–13980
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 explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three evidentiary criteria. In the alternative, AAO noted the record in aggregate does 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 explicitly declined to conduct a formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of at least three evidentiary criteria. In the alternative, AAO noted the record in aggregate does not show the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-21_05_B2203; source_row=24741 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions of major significance
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner's two highest-cited articles received only six citations each, and he did not articulate the significance of those citations. Conference participation alone was insufficient. Reference letters were largely conclusory, recounted career accomplishments without specifics, parroted regulatory language, or speculated on future impact rather than establishing present major significance.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's two highest-cited articles received only six citations each, and he did not articulate the significance of those citations. Conference participation alone was insufficient. Reference letters were largely conclusory, recounted career accomplishments without specifics, parroted regulatory language, or speculated on future impact rather than establishing present major significance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-20_01_B2203; source_row=24711 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner documented membership with several associations but failed to demonstrate that any of them require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner documented membership with several associations but failed to demonstrate that any of them require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. Evidence for ASA showed membership was available to residents of economically developing countries; IBS welcomed anyone interested in applying similar technologies; NSS required only a degree in statistics; and no evidence was provided for NSI or NSA membership requirements.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-20_01_B2203; source_row=24709 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Mathematics / Statistics
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold evidentiary criteria, but noted in advisory dicta that the record does not support 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 reserved the final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold evidentiary criteria, but noted in advisory dicta that the record does not support the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-20_01_B2203; source_row=24713 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the scholarly articles criterion based on authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
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 with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the scholarly articles criterion based on authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-20_01_B2203; source_row=24712 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Ability to pay combined proffered wages of multiple I-140 petitions
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO affirmed the Director, finding the Petitioner's chart of petitions was incomplete (missing proffered wages, unclear Annual Pay vs. W-2 Pay discrepancies, no LPR status updates), making it impossible to calculate total wage deficiency. Net income of $82,218 was insufficient to cover even the Petitioner's own claimed 'total liability' of $197,713, and that figure was itself understated.…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO affirmed the Director, finding the Petitioner's chart of petitions was incomplete (missing proffered wages, unclear Annual Pay vs. W-2 Pay discrepancies, no LPR status updates), making it impossible to calculate total wage deficiency. Net income of $82,218 was insufficient to cover even the Petitioner's own claimed 'total liability' of $197,713, and that figure was itself understated. Retained earnings are duplicative of net income and not necessarily liquid. Officer compensation reallocation was unsupported. Future income projections were speculative. Totality of circumstances did not overcome the shortfall given multiple pending/approved petitions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-20_01_B5203; source_row=24714 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
60 months of related qualifying experience as required by labor certification
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO raised this issue sua sponte, as the Director had not addressed it. The record showed only about 22 months of qualifying experience via compliant letters; two additional letters were non-compliant because they did not describe specific duties, leaving the 60-month requirement unmet as of the priority date.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO raised this issue sua sponte, as the Director had not addressed it. The record showed only about 22 months of qualifying experience via compliant letters; two additional letters were non-compliant because they did not describe specific duties, leaving the 60-month requirement unmet as of the priority date.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-20_01_B5203; source_row=24715 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that the Petitioner's roles as referee and deputy chief judge involved enforcing rules and regulations and briefing other judges rather than evaluating the skills of rowers or otherwise judging the work of others in the field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that the Petitioner's roles as referee and deputy chief judge involved enforcing rules and regulations and briefing other judges rather than evaluating the skills of rowers or otherwise judging the work of others in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-19_01_B2203; source_row=24707 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner failed to establish that his competition placements constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Letters confirmed finishes but did not address national or international significance; competition rules discussed awards but not their standing in the field; newspaper articles reported results without addressing significance; and translation inaccuracies (circ…
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 his competition placements constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Letters confirmed finishes but did not address national or international significance; competition rules discussed awards but not their standing in the field; newspaper articles reported results without addressing significance; and translation inaccuracies (circulation statistics not in original documents) undermined the submissions.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-11-19_01_B2203; source_row=24705 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c