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.
The letters did not discuss whose work the Beneficiary judged or the specific projects evaluated. The Petitioner also did not provide information about MADS School or the area of focus for the MADS Award program, leaving insufficient evidence that the Beneficiary's activities constituted judging of others' work in the field.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The letters did not discuss whose work the Beneficiary judged or the specific projects evaluated. The Petitioner also did not provide information about MADS School or the area of focus for the MADS Award program, leaving insufficient evidence that the Beneficiary's activities constituted judging of others' work in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_02_B2203; source_row=24342 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material
Why AAO was not persuaded
The screenshots did not include full articles, did not identify authors, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate these websites constitute major media. Moreover, many articles were about advertising projects or employers rather than about the Beneficiary himself.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The screenshots did not include full articles, did not identify authors, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate these websites constitute major media. Moreover, many articles were about advertising projects or employers rather than about the Beneficiary himself.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_02_B2203; source_row=24341 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that the letters of support confirmed employment and project work but did not establish that the Beneficiary held a leading position or that his roles were of significant importance to the organizations' overall success. Additionally, the organizations were not shown to have a distinguished reputation based on self-promotional website materials alone.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO withdrew the Director's finding, concluding that the letters of support confirmed employment and project work but did not establish that the Beneficiary held a leading position or that his roles were of significant importance to the organizations' overall success. Additionally, the organizations were not shown to have a distinguished reputation based on self-promotional website materials alone.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_02_B2203; source_row=24344 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
Awards for the Beneficiary's projects were not shown to be nationally or internationally significant. Media articles discussed advertising campaigns generally without attributing major significance to the Beneficiary's specific contributions. Support letters praised his talents but did not explain how his work rose to major significance in the field overall.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
Awards for the Beneficiary's projects were not shown to be nationally or internationally significant. Media articles discussed advertising campaigns generally without attributing major significance to the Beneficiary's specific contributions. Support letters praised his talents but did not explain how his work rose to major significance in the field overall.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_02_B2203; source_row=24343 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Social Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO declined to reach a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the threshold step-1 inquiry, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support a finding of 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 reach a full final merits determination because the Petitioner failed the threshold step-1 inquiry, but noted in the aggregate that the record does not support a finding of the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_01_B2203; source_row=24332 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
Statements for 2018 and 2019 were outside the relevant period. For 2017, the bank funds were presumably already included in current assets on the tax return, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate they represent additional money available to pay the proffered wage.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Statements for 2018 and 2019 were outside the relevant period. For 2017, the bank funds were presumably already included in current assets on the tax return, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate they represent additional money available to pay the proffered wage.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_01_B5203; source_row=24336 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner listed 31 other pending or approved immigrant petitions but did not provide their proffered wages. USCIS records identified at least 14 additional petitions. Without the combined wage data, total wage burden could not be calculated.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner listed 31 other pending or approved immigrant petitions but did not provide their proffered wages. USCIS records identified at least 14 additional petitions. Without the combined wage data, total wage burden could not be calculated.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_01_B5203; source_row=24334 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The claimed uncharacteristic expenses were insufficiently documented. The bad debt deduction lacked supporting documentation; even adding it back would not establish ability to pay the combined proffered wages. The one-time nature of 2017 legal and business development expenses was not proven. Software product investments were similar in both years, undermining their uncharacteristic character.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The claimed uncharacteristic expenses were insufficiently documented. The bad debt deduction lacked supporting documentation; even adding it back would not establish ability to pay the combined proffered wages. The one-time nature of 2017 legal and business development expenses was not proven. Software product investments were similar in both years, undermining their uncharacteristic character.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_01_B5203; source_row=24335 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
A line of credit is not an existing loan and does not legally obligate the bank to advance funds. Because the credit line is not guaranteed and additional credit would increase the Petitioner's debt, it does not establish ability to pay.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
A line of credit is not an existing loan and does not legally obligate the bank to advance funds. Because the credit line is not guaranteed and additional credit would increase the Petitioner's debt, it does not establish ability to pay.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2019-08-27_01_B5203; source_row=24337 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c